Those who disagree with the consensus position of working climatologists--that there is strong evidence that anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases is causing and will cause harmful lower tropospheric warming--like to call themselves "skeptics". "Skeptic" is a highly respectable label. No mere synonym for "doubter" or "one who disagrees", it carries with it connotations of modesty, caution in forming an opinion, and careful consideration of evidence. A skeptic does not choose a side and set out in search of evidence for his chosen side; a skeptic bases his position on the evidence and is openly aware of that position's weaknesses, tending always toward modesty and toward qualifying his statements when in doubt.
Skepticism is the behavior expected of working scientists and social scientists of all disciplines, and it can be said to be institutiionalized in the written and unwritten rules for communication, evaluation, and validation of scientific conclusions. There's thus an implicit insult in the adoption of "skeptic" by doubters of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) to set themselves apart from climatologists and those who have been following their work. Such usage carries with it the implication that scientists, especially working climatologists, are acting in an unscientific manner, that they are not being skeptical but have instead rushed to a conclusion. The "skeptics" have yet to substantiate this with a scientifically sound argument against AGW or even against the mainstream assessment of the strength of the evidence. Some might say that such arguments are being made but have been, to date, suppressed, but with rapid electronic transmission of hundreds of pages of text and graphics to thousands of readers well within the means of anyone in the developed world, such suppression is unlikely. Nonetheless the doubters have succeeded in convincing a considerable proportion of the public that, to the exclusion of people who agree with the mainstream assessment of climate science, they are the skeptics.
In addition to insult, there is irony in this. It's very difficult to find a skeptical doubter. The very few who are working scientists have taken to avoiding presenting their arguments for frank evaluation by fellow experts at professional society meetings or through journal articles, preferring instead to directly address a public ill-equipped for meaningful criticism by writing books and newspaper opinions and presenting at think-tank conferences. Those who are not scientists (and some of those who are) do not merely avoid institutionalized skepticism; they also exhibit a sort of credulity, a refusal to distinguish good argument from bad, and a tendency to believe even silly arguments against AGW while rejecting some of the most sound and most modest arguments in favor. That is the opposite of skepticism.
It appears as though the doubters' position was determined in advance, and that they fumble about in search of any argument, cherry-picked datum, or rhetorical trick that can be used to convince another of his position, fairly or not, regardless of the argument's merit. It is for this reason that those of us who agree with expert assessment of AGW tend to call the doubters "denialists." Their object is not the scientist's or skeptic's search for truth; their object is to disagree with and deny what our best science says is happening and to find, make up, or pretend to have found anything to support such denial.
One could hardly ask for a better example of denialism than a Thursday, 9 July 2009 guest opinion by one Jon F. Buck in the Arizona Daily Star, a regional daily with circulation equal to roughly a hundred thousand, entitled "Don't tax us over shaky science". Buck, an employee of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce but ostensibly speaking for himself, exhibits the denialist's characteristic "honest dishonesty".
He begins benignly enough, with a mention of telescope mirror fabrication pioneer Roger Angel's foray into solar collector mirror design and a local Tucson business's development of lightweight cheap mirrors, suggesting that Angel notice this if he hasn't already. As, for opinion writers, column-inches are scarce and word limits low, it's hard to say why Buck spent a third of his piece on such a digression. Perhaps it was to establish, in an "aw shucks" fashion, that his goal is to help out. But it's clear that he's not out to help out. He's out to convince the readership of two things: that Congress should not implement a carbon tax and that AGW is "shaky science". Let's read further.
I am concerned about our country's response to global warming/climate change. There is a dangerous "group think" that can decimate our fragile economy by persuading citizens to support big tax hikes on energy.
That is exactly what our Congress members Raúl Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords voted for with "cap and trade," a bill that passed the House June 26.
Cap and trade is supposed to reduce carbon gases in our atmosphere, but could tax American businesses and families so much that jobs could shift overseas to countries that pollute more than the United States to create the same goods.
Buck begins his attack on science right at the top, with his accusation of "group think", but this is mostly talk about policy: both (Tucson-area congressmen) Grijalva and Giffords voted for a bill with "cap and trade" provisions, the "American Clean Energy and Security Act", often called the "Waxman-Markey bill", on 26 June. But while there are many (the so-called "Pigou Club") calling for a carbon tax, this is not that. Cap and trade schemes, which require emitters (or proxies for emitters, e.g. fuel vendors) to hold permits for their emissions, with the total number of permits capped to reflect the limited quantity of greenhouse gas that can be emitted without perturbing climate (a form of scarcity) are categorically distinct from carbon taxes. We can overlook this blunder and take Buck to claim that Waxman-Markey's effects, even though it is not a tax, would decimate the American economy. That seems like a bit of an exaggeration: 100 billion dollars per year--the EPA's estimate, according to the Pew Center's summary--sounds like a lot, but it falls an order of magnitude short of decimation of an almost $14 trillion economy. But again reading Buck generously, we can say that he's predicting that the rest of the world will not follow the U.S. in reining in carbon emissions. Fair enough.
So far this has been about policy, but it speaks to Buck's state of mind. The denialism follows:
Man-made global warming is still theory
Thus the nonsense arguments begin. Theory as opposed to what? There is a popular use of the term "theory" as a synonym for "conjecture" or "hypothesis", but "still theory" would imply that scientific theories can become something better than theories. The only thing that theory grows up to be is obsolete theory. Every scientific theory is always "still theory". Using scientists' use of the word "theory" against them is an example of a dishonest rhetorical tactic so common it has a name: equivocation.
"Maybe we are responsible, but maybe not; more scientists are questioning that hypothesis."
Now we're talking about a "hypothesis": interesting. Every scientist who does attribution studies meaningfully questions that hypothesis. Are more scientists doing attribution studies? I know that's not what Buck means: Buck is using "question" to mean "doubt": a weasel tactic that would imply that non-doubters are not questioning. As for there being more doubters: climatology is not my field so I do not follow the literature day-to-day, but as I understand it the literature does not reflect an increase in doubters.
There are natural phenomena that can warm our planet sans industrialization.
We do know the sun's energy varies (which might explain why other planets' atmospheres seem to be warming). We also know our solar system is bathed in cosmic radiation, which varies. The core of our planet is molten; an upturn inside may warm surface temperatures.
Next to conspiracy theories about "socialism" or a "hoax", this is perhaps the most common denialist tactic, to posit a legitimate if naive conjecture, to not look to see if that conjecture has been addressed in the scientific literature, and to parlay one's own laziness or refusal to search for the answer into an excuse for having a strong opinion.
This speculation about warming happening from the ground up is actually a new one on me, and it's patently ridiculous. We understand why the earth is still hot and molten on the inside billions of years after its formation and the era of heavy bombardment by meteors: this is due to decay of mineral radioisotopes. An increase in this decay rate would be quite strange. But that's beside the point: there's no evidence in the instrumental record that the earth's interior has warmed, let alone to the point where global warming can be attributed to such a process.
The sun, on the other hand, is the denialists' favorite excuse. We've heard that one over and over. I often wonder if people like Buck think that the scientists who work on this for a living really didn't think to check the sun. They could answer that question in seconds by consulting the Working Group 1 section of the IPCC Fourth Assessment. Report In no other field of inquiry do the experts produce such a comprehensive and conservative summary of the state of science for the public; this review is available free of charge and there is truly no excuse for anyone who deigns to be an opinion-maker on the subject of climate change to not read it. Attribution is discussed in chapter 9 and references therein. That solar irradiance has decreased (albeit only slightly) since the 1970s should also put to rest any thought that one can account for the global warming signal by a solar forcing alone. Perhaps the mention of cosmic radiation is an allusion to the conjecture that the cosmic ray flux can modulate cloud formation. Plausible, but we have measurements of the recent cosmic ray flux, and it shows no trend.
My favorite theory comes from a PBS program in which scientists demonstrated that Earth's magnetic poles appear ready to flip. Their findings showed the north/south poles reversed in polarity roughly every 200,000 years. These shifts are long overdue; its been about 700,000 years since the previous reversal. The dispersal of the magnetic fields could explain disorientation reported in migratory birds and fish.
If there is warming, the cause may be more esoteric. Perhaps the vibratory level of the planet is speeding up or the consciousnesses of people are being stepped-up, affecting the environment around us.
Now we're into the nonsense! Geomagnetic reversal is not in itself junk science, but bringing it up here, along with disorientation of birds and fish, is junk argument. (For those interested in reading more about it, Wikipedia offers a reasonably well-written introduction.) If there is a connection to be made with recently observed warming, Buck is the first to make it! But compared to a "vibratory level" or a stepped up "consciousness" it sounds like sanity. At least we know that a diminished or collapsed magnetic field will perturb the ionosphere which may in turn result in a change in cosmic ray bombardment (...), whereas this new age babble about vibratory consciousness (or whatever) is simple technolalia. Maybe I could convince Buck that climate change is caused by the continuum transfunctioner.
Buck concludes:
The long-term effects of global warming or cooling, if they happen, are far from known. There may be catastrophes, yet the results may be a Garden of Eden.
Meanwhile, let us embrace research and development to make alternative energy more efficient and competitive with fossil fuels, but restrain Congress from disabling our economy with sky-high taxes on gasoline, electricity and natural gas.
Notice the false dualities, the whipping up of extremes for extremes' case, typical among denialists. Above it could categorically be Man, or it could categorically be something else--all of the subtlety of attribution, all of the "it's a little this but mostly that, and here's why" is lost on Buck. Here we have either catastrophes or a "Garden of Eden". I don't know what demarcates catastrophes from ordinary harms, but I do know that a "Garden of Eden" scenario would negate the entirety of the Working Group 2 section of the IPCC 4AR. Species extinctions, ecological disruptions, ocean acidification, desertification, and flooding, none of this is a "Garden of Eden", and even among those who disagree with mainstream attribution, none of this is controversial.
So many of the denialist tactics are here: false dualities, turning personal laziness into an excuse for an opinion, repeating claims that have been debunked over and over ("It's the sun"), nonsequiturs, nonsense arguments, that one would suspect that this is parody. But if it is, it's too subtle to be caught by the target audience. And his remarks on science seem there to support his thoughts on policy, which sound sincere, however goofy: Congress is not showing any inclination to disable the American economy, let alone by sky-high energy taxes.
When it comes to questions of science, honesty and sincerity are not the same. Honesty in science is an active process, and like so many who see things his way, Buck rejects that process. What I gather, and I get the same impression from many other denialists, is that he is frightened (perhaps by his own exaggerations) and so inept as to be nearly incapable of truly critical reasoning concerning this matter. Fright and ineptitude have never been the ingredients of legitimate opinion, and they sure aren't skepticism, either.
©2009 B. S. Kalafut, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Monday, July 13, 2009
Last modified: Monday, July 13, 2009
The views expressed in this article are those of B. S. Kalafut only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. B. S. Kalafut is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by B. S. Kalafut of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By B. S. Kalafut |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Donna Laframboise
Date: 2009-07-13 03:56:13
If the fate of the planet really is at stake, we need to carefully consider a variety of perspectives. Even amongst scientists who believe global warming is real, there are a range of opinions.
Reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be considered gospel by some, but the supposed thousands of scientists involved are never asked to agree to a single, big-picture statement. Most scientists work on only small portions of certain chapters. Some have resigned and many more have publicly protested the highly-politicized nature of the IPCC process.
The final, overarching IPCC Summary for Policy Makers that attracts all the media attention isn't written by the best scientific minds on the planet. Rather, after being drafted by bureaucrats it is agreed to – line by painstakingly line – by representatives of governments who belong to the United Nations. It is politicians – not scientists – whose views prevail.
On the one hand, people concerned about global warming hold up the IPCC reports as proof of the correctness of their view. On the other hand, they fail to object when activists like Al Gore and James Hansen warn of catastrophic climate consequences that far exceed anything to be found in those reports.
Smart people with impressive credentials think the planet is threatened by global warming. Other smart people with equally impressive credentials say recent warming isn't unusual by historical standards and is therefore not a crisis. We haven't made an informed decision if we've only listened to one side of this debate.
Donna Laframboise
creator of NOconsensus.org
Posted By: Larry
Date: 2009-07-13 04:48:48
If you want to know what causes global warming or cooling, look up, not sideways. That's right, the sun warms the Earth and allows it to cool based on its sunspot cycle. Currently the northern hemisphere is having one of its coldest summers on record. AGW theory - it's getting colder therefore it must be getting warmer and we need to let the government regulate us even more to combat this disturbing trend....
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-295567
Posted By: gene
Date: 2009-07-13 08:31:37
very good article. good point on the cap and trade, which is simply another subsidized investment vehicle provided to industry by Congress, actually very similar to the federal reserve in that what the government hands out has no "real" cost to those who are selected to receive it, but they are able to resell it for a profit. contrary to what is claimed, it could "lower" big industries production costs and increase the cost to small players. a real carbon tax could replace the virtually non existent royalty fees.
Posted By: trd
Date: 2009-07-13 11:38:19
B.S. Kalafut:
Based on your description, Galileo Galilei was also a "denialist" non-skeptic and so was Newton and Einstein in their times. And althought still in theories and not proven: Darwing and Freud were also "denialists" based on your writing. They all went against a conventional wisdom at the time with theories based on thought. Some of these theories were proven, some are still being tested.
Nobody knows for sure whether global warming, IF IT EXISTS, is caused by man. Just because the wide majority of the people are dupped into believing it exists, it does not make someone who believes the opposing view a mere denialist or non-skeptic. He just believes the minotirty point of view.
Same as with a god: There is no proof whether it exists or not. Therefore those in the minority who after some thought but with no proof believe in the non-existence of a god are therefore as bad as the one who do not beleive in AGW in your opinion.
Today global warming beliefs are like a religion to the masses. Although there are studies on the subject, the average man can not even comprehend those studies either way. So the average man can chose to either believe in global warming or not. Since the media and governments are always singing to the tune of 'the sky is falling down' to inject fear into the masses, then the majority of the people will believe that AGW is real. It is like an advertising phenomenon. I don't believe is a media or government conspiracy though. I think is merely a market based believe in AGW and the more it is advertised, the more people believe it.
So for your information:
Yes, MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS STILL THEORY. It has NOT been proven. I personally chose to be more inclined NOT to believe that theory only because in my own personal thinking process it does not make sense, but I could be wrong.
Darwing's theory of evolution is also still a THEORY. I chose to be more inclided to believe it because it makes more sense to me. Nevertheless is still a theory and Darwing could be wrong.
Likewise with the existence of a god.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-07-13 11:42:15
Hi B.S. Kalifut,
As long as the word concensus is used in the same sentence as is attempting to leverage the discipline of science, I remain unconvinced that climate change is anything more than a political tactic. There is a concensus among Christians that Christ arose from the dead and a concensus among schizophrenics that antennae stick out from their heads sometimes. Consensus has nothing to do with science; it is a fallacious club for the faithful...whatever the faith may be.
If there was factual evidence that humans are creating a climate change that is not part of earth's normal processes, there is still no proven theory that government intervention can mitigate the consequences. In fact, history shows that governments are far better at amplifying the damage and delaying it onto future generations...exactly those folks who the man-made climate change faithful say they are acting on behalf of. The religion of the climate change has only one difference from any other religion...that being what their faithful worship rituals are intended to save.
Faith doesn't work on anyone but the person holding onto it. Proof is what is needed to sway the nonreligious. Faith and reason are incompatible frames of reference. Anyone too steeped in one frame has no chance of communicating with those steeped deeply in the other.
-Jahfre Fire Eater
Posted By: Randy
Date: 2009-07-13 11:52:33
Man-made-up global warming? You are hilarious. How many of these government scientists are getting paid to make their hypothetical models that are constantly misleading and outright false, that only factor in what their elected officials that hired them choose to have it factor in. Climatologists are simply ugly weather-girls and about as accurate as well. Global Warming or Climate Change doesn't require groupthink, it requires the more convenient liberal abuse of Doublethink. Maybe you should focus more on the science instead of semantics, but I forgot, its not about the science is it?
Posted By: Phil Manger
Date: 2009-07-13 12:10:22
Randy, Jahfre, trd, et al.
Check out my article, "Climate Change and Keynesianism" on this site, if you have not already done so. I deal with the idea of consensus in science, and compare the global warming "consensus" to the Keynesian "consensus" of an earlier day.
Posted By: B. S. Kalafut
Date: 2009-07-13 12:42:48
Taking them roughly in order:
Donna Laframboise wrote:
Reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be considered gospel by some, but the supposed thousands of scientists involved are never asked to agree to a single, big-picture statement. Most scientists work on only small portions of certain chapters. Some have resigned and many more have publicly protested the highly-politicized nature of the IPCC process.
The final, overarching IPCC Summary for Policy Makers that attracts all the media attention isn't written by the best scientific minds on the planet. Rather, after being drafted by bureaucrats it is agreed to – line by painstakingly line – by representatives of governments who belong to the United Nations. It is politicians – not scientists – whose views prevail.(...)
Smart people with impressive credentials think the planet is threatened by global warming. Other smart people with equally impressive credentials (...) We haven't made an informed decision if we've only listened to one side of this debate.I don't care too much about intelligence or credentials but rather the merits of their arguments, and whether or not they are participating in the process. Science is not done by debate, it is not done by choosing a side and finding the best rhetorical flourishes to augment one's evidence. It's done mostly in writing, supplemented by oral presentations. The denialists/doubters haven't been publishing in the meaningful sense.
The IPCC report is a fairly thorough and modest summary, like a very comprehensive review article. The "Summary for Policymakers" is something I don't ordinarily care too much about, but something you wrote needs to be cleared up: what the governments do not get to do is change the scientific content, even if they get to change the language. You will find no place in the Summary for Policymakers that conflicts with the real 4AR. But I recommend against the Summary for Policymakers anyway, because it is not as clear as the 4AR.
Regarding resignations from the IPCC, Chris Landsea resigned in protest of what he saw (perhaps rightfully) as a fellow scientist's misconduct toward the press. I've searched, and asked, and nobody has shown me another, let alone someone who has resigned over scientific content. I treat the IPCC report as a starting point for the literature and not the end. Unlike an ordinary review article it has dozens of authors, none of whom can be expected to agree (or disagree) with all of the science except in vouching for the parts to which they didn't contribute also being done fairly and modestly. And its tone is different than an ordinary review, as it's done for the benefit of the world's governments and people like us.
Semi-anonymous "gene":
That's an interesting line of thought. Could you point me to more information?
If we're going to go with cap-and-trade I'd prefer a scheme wherein the permits are a permanent property right ot emit a certain amount of CO2 (or a certain smaller amount of methane) per fiscal year. This doesn't have the 'giveaway' feature of which you seem to disapprove.
Anonymous coward "trd" wrote:
Based on your description, Galileo Galilei was also a "denialist" non-skeptic and so was Newton and Einstein in their times.
You seemed to miss the point. "Denialists" are denialists because the picked a side and sought out argument for it, like lawyers do. Galileo and Newton were both proto-scientists but appeared largely skeptical even if the standards of argumentation were looser in their day. Einstein was certainly in the scientific mainstream. I'm surprised you don't bring up Boltzmann, the real "tragic hero" who was right but couldn't convince others who were too set in their ways.
Although there are studies on the subject, the average man can not even comprehend those studies either way. So the average man can chose to either believe in global warming or not.
That is, to me, the most interesting feature of the public dispute over AGW. But I disagree about the freedom of choice. What one can say is "I don't know". Or one can step up to the plate and learn to discriminate between good and bad argument. If the denialists weren't debunked over and over again--in freely accessible places--I'd say, yes, it's a matter of trust. But it's not. It's a matter of either "I don't know" or "Gee this 'side' gets demolished by that one, and that one is exhibiting modest behavior whereas this one is blustery".
I personally chose to be more inclined NOT to believe that theory only because in my own personal thinking process it does not make sense, but I could be wrong.
Keeping in mind that scientific truth is different than mathematical truth, what do you mean by "proven" here--what are your standards of proof. And just what is it that a theory grows up to be? I'm a working scientist, and I've never seen a theory grow up to be something else, nor am I aware of it happening historically.
Regarding the part that doesn't make sense, send polite questions along with your name and location to bennett@kalafut.us and I will attempt to answer your questions on the 'blog "Stochastic Gain Medium.
Regular contributer Jahfre Fire Eater wrote:
As long as the word concensus is used in the same sentence as is attempting to leverage the discipline of science, I remain unconvinced that climate change is anything more than a political tactic....
Something the public misses in this is that mention
of "consensus" is an appeal to modesty. It's "It's not just me, it's the state of the literature." And also distinction must be made between barroom consensus, which is not a process and can be probed by a straw poll, and scientific consensus, which is a process and t cannot be probed by a straw poll of people called "scientists". I invite you to point me to recent articles in the technical literature that show an absence of consensus, taking care to not conflate disagreement at the margin with categorical disagreement with the AGW thesis.Semi-anonymous "Larry" wrote:
(...)That's right, the sun warms the Earth and allows it to cool based on its sunspot cycle.(...)
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-295567
Back in college, I lived for three years in a co-ed dormitory. One year there was a guy on the floor who liked drawing penises on the girls' whiteboards and occasionally writing obscenities. Discussion threads on any article on global warming often come to look like this. Fortunately the "macho flashers" haven't showed up yet. (Thanks, all, for intelligent comments.)
That is, except this one. This is the obligatory penis graffiti. "It's the sun". Just google why it ain't. It's been debunked over and over and over--and the GCM models, based on known physics and a few empirical parametrizations (that is to say, not "fit" or "tuned" for the data) explain the trends without adding a mystery solar cycle term. That link you provide is a 'blog post about year to year weather, which is not what is in question here. Climate is. And Scafetta and West, perhaps the most generous recent study of the solar contribution (and really more of a methodology test...) would have you thinking perhaps the Sun (irradiance, not cycles) was responsible for a considerable portion early 20th C. warming but not later 20th C warming, and even still, Man's emissions are reason for worry.
That's a big deal, there. You can argue 'till you're blue in the face about small points of attribution, but there is no getting around the greenhouse effect, and the greenhouse effect is settled science. We understand radiation. It's everything on top of that that's under contiuning development.
And that link you provide is to a 'blog post about year to year weather, which isn't climate. If you really want to convince people that it's solar cycles, point us to the physics.
The offer I make above, by the way, stands. Send polite questions and means to identify you to bennett@kalafut.us and I will post your question, your name, and my answer to Stochastic Gain Medium. Why identifying info? It's fair--your three-minute statements are connected to your reputation as much as my thirty-minute answer. And it cuts down tremendously on the penis graffiti.
Posted By: B. S. Kalafut
Date: 2009-07-13 12:44:58
Yet more penis graffiti, this time from anonymous coward "Randy". That post must have been brought to us by Carl's Jr.
I knew it was coming, here's hoping the intelligent remarks overwhelm it.
Posted By: B. S. Kalafut
Date: 2009-07-13 13:09:49
Phil Manger:
If that comparison is valid, you would also have to say that much of geophysics/atmospheric science is incredibly tentative, on shaky ground. Would you make that assessment of geophysics?
You would also have to produce for us examples of people doing good climate science being treated like Coase and Tullock were years ago. Given the size of the denialist noise machine, you'd think I'd have heard of them already. But maybe I haven't. So who are they?
Posted By: David S
Date: 2009-07-13 13:20:07
Over 600 scientists endorsed the Manhattan Declaration which strongly refutes the AGW theory. [link edited for length]
There is a list of the endorsers at that site as well.
Where is the list of scientists who support the AGW theory?
At one time the AGW crowd was claiming that over 2000 scientists backed the IPCC report. But Richard Lindzen, a professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, has pointed out that the number includes many non-scientists and that none of the 2000 people were asked if they agreed with the conclusions. Lindzen was part of the IPCC at one time.
Posted By: Phil Manger
Date: 2009-07-13 13:53:59
B. S. Kalafut,
You miss my point. Deliberately, I think. Coase and Tullock (and Buchanan, Mises, Rothbard, Friedman, etc.) were working outside the Keynesian consensus, so the work they were doing was not considered "good science" at the time. The "Austrians" couldn't get published at all (try doing a literature search of the refereed economics journals in the 1950s and 1960s and see how many articles you can find by Ludwig von Mises -- and it's not that he wasn't actively doing research during that period). Friedman was savaged because he used reduced-form econometric models, as opposed to the supposedly more sophisticated Keynesian simultaneous equations models. Yet Friedman's models consistently yielded better predictions than the Keynesian models. He was attacked because of his conclusions, not because of his research methods.
As for climate scientists being treated like Coase and Tullock, how about Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen?
My main point remains: if the global warming crowd are so sure of their position, then let them engage in honest debate. The fact that they have tried to silence their critics and end all debate tells me there's not much to their position.
For those reading this comment who are just coming into this discussion, you can read a fuller exposition of my views here.
Posted By: Ben Kalafut
Date: 2009-07-13 14:02:57
Phil Manger:
Thank you for clarifying your point. Your command of economic history is clearly superior to mine--and I read your article very quickly.
The bit about Friedman is especially well taken. The Austrians leave themselves vulnerable due to their rejection of math and econometrics, their dogmatism, and their apriorism. Friedman could perhaps be taken as analogous to Boltzmann, except he didn't shoot himself before his vindication!
Fred Singer is not doing climate science. Lindzen is. Lindzen continues to publish and receive credit where credit is due.
There is no such thing as "honest debate" in science. Debate is considered dishonest in science and is usually called for by those who don't have much to their position. It will serve you well as a rule of thumb, to assume in the natural sciences that the person who calls for debate is the person who has a poor argument.
There has been no silencing of critics. The journals remain open to all no matter the conclusion, so long as the science is reasonably sound. Posters and platform talks at professional meetings remain open as well. The "silence" from the doubters in the literature is not because they are silenced but rather because they have little legitimate to say. So they chatter and chatter to the public, repeating obsolete or mal fide arguments.
Posted By: trd
Date: 2009-07-13 14:03:47
Mr. B.S.:
Didn't Pluto used to be a planet? Wasn't the Earth flat? Didn't the Sun revolved around the Earth?
Didn't we have scientists in the 80's warning us about the next Ice Age and now is Global Warming? ....Even better, now they call it "climate change". How convenient the term "climate change". That's a great hedge against either direction because one thing we can all agree on is that the climage will CHANGE.
AGW today is more religion and politics than science. Be careful, the "sky is falling down". I guess people have to believe in something.
I still have the tendency to go in the direction of not believing AGW but I could be wrong. Neither direction is proven.
I will concede though that at the local level there is a lot of ecological and environmental damage from dumping waste into a river, local de-forrest, water supply, coal and oil burning soot, lakes, beaches, open mine pits, and many other local ecological atrocities... But that damage is more at the local level (micro) when compared to the Globe and will affect those neighborhoods in that region. So we should worry more about localized contamination in our respective communities than at the global level where there is an unlikely effect from the human.
One of the big global changes will happen when the Yellowstone Volcano fanally erupts. It could be tomorrow, it could be 100,000 years from now. We don't know. When that volcano erupts we are really going to have a much bigger impact to the globe that whatever the human can contribute. Most if not all of the humans will be killed. It is estimated that the ashes from the eruption will circle the globe and cover the atmosphere for about 1 year trigging and ice age. There is nothing that politicians, humans, governments or higher taxes can do to prevent a Yellowstone eruption. NATURAL disasters will bring global warming or cooling not humans. None of those NATURAL disasters will be man-made. Like death, we just don't know when these disaster will happen.
AGW is NOT proven. AGW is today merely a pollitical poll and a religious belief.
If you don't believe me, that's o.k. That is what the 1st amendment is for. You can believe whatever religion you want. You just happen to chose AGW as yours and I will encourage you to believe in AGW if you want. Just don't tax me on it. By the time we can prove each other wrong, we will be dead and none of it will matter.
Posted By: Ben Kalafut
Date: 2009-07-13 14:16:42
Anonymous "David S":Why do you waste our time with this "counting scientists". (And if that's what matters, why not consider the AAAS poll? http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/07/us_public_likes_science_doesnt.html )
You claim that this "Manhattan Declaration" strongly refutes the "AGW theory"; you lie. "Lie", plain and simple without qualification. Why do you waste my time by lying to me?
The full text is at http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1
That is not a refutation of anything. That does not address science. That is a position statement and nothing more.
Note also that the IPCC report goes out of its way to be a modest consensus document. (I still recommend treating it as a starting point for reading the literature, and not as the last word.) These think-tank conferences, they don't endeavor to be comprehensive.
Point me to publications supporting the doubter side. And please don't lie again. If you say something refutes a theory, make sure it refutes a theory, or at least attempts to do so.
Posted By: B. S. Kalafut
Date: 2009-07-13 14:24:56
That's a cute rant, TRD. Spend as much time searching as you did writing it and you'll find
(1) That Pluto's classification as a major planet was an accident of history.
(2) That the "ice age" hype in the '70s was journalistic.
Natural forcings can perturb climate, yes. If the Yellowstone Caldera goes, it will be a major perturbation, yes. None of that means that an anthropogenically enhanced greenhouse effect will not perturb the climate.
You insult me by calling my position a religious belief, but: I have read and understand the papers. I know how to set up a two-layer radiative balance model for the greenhouse effect. I know how to set up a one-dimensional radiative balance model for the greenhouse effect. I know how to feed such a model inputs and get a meaningful answer. And I don't do climatology, so a GCM I would do would probably not be thorough, but I understand the GCM papers, and I can read the literature well enough to know that there is no feedback that gives us an "out" from the greenhouse effect.
That ain't a profession of faith, "trd", that's a scientist's statement of understanding and capabilty.
Posted By: Phil Manger
Date: 2009-07-13 14:36:24
Ben Kalafut,
What do you mean there is no such thing as "honest debate" in science? I remember very clearly the debate over catastrophe theory in mathematics in the 1970s, which got quite vehement at times. To say there is no debate is to say that the science is settled. It's NEVER settled. Scientists don't write 928 articles to prove a point that's "settled".
As for the journals being open to all, where to you get that? I've been on both sides of the peer-review process, so I know something about what I'm saying. I can show you articles I've submitted and referees' comments I've received that make it clear to me that the referee didn't bother to read the article before rejecting it -- he just read the abstract and maybe looked at a graph or two. (At least when I got an article to review, I read the whole thing -- including footnotes.)
Some of the seminal literature in economics -- articles that were later cited by Nobel Prize committees -- were submitted to as many as a dozen different journals before they were accepted for publication.
Posted By: Ben Kalafut
Date: 2009-07-13 14:50:14
Phil Manger:
I, too, have been on both ends of the review process, and am sometimes all too aware of the human failings of referees. To point to the failings of referees and the need to "shop around" for a place to publish even good papers is not the same as saying "the journals, altogether, are shutting out good science because of its conclusion".
This is the Internet Age. Produce for me a "smoking gun", a preprint which soundly brings the AGW thesis into categorical doubt. I can't prove that such a thing, like a teapot in the asteroid belt, doesn't exist, but if you're to make a claim that bad behavior is shutting science out of all of the journals, you really ought to back up such an accusation.
Regarding debate: if scientists are writing articles, they're not debating. Scientists can disagree, they can believe different things, but they can either take up their disagreements in debate or they can discuss them and advance their points of view in the literature or at conferences. Debate and normal scientific discussion are mutually exclusive.
And there most certainly is science that is settled. To choose a trivial example, nobody will claim that kinesin does not walk hand over hand. That is not to say that some unforseen result can't somehow un-settle that. But for now, it's settled.
Posted By: Phil Manger
Date: 2009-07-13 15:34:56
Ben Kalafut,
What brings any theory into doubt are the existence of phenomena the theory claims to explain, but can't. One such phenomenon is the medieval warming period that was followed by the Little Ice Age. There was no increase in carbon emissions generated by human activity (or by anything else, as I understand it), so AGW cannot explain the MWP. And since the population was growing, not declining, by the global warming alarmists' reasoning, the earth should have continued to warm instead of cooling down into the Little Ice Age. There are enough other phenomena (such as a high correlation of temperature with sunspot activity) that cast doubt on AGW, that it can hardly be accepted as "settled".
You're not going to find a "smoking gun". If you don't toe the AGW line, you're not going to get funded, so you won't have an article to submit. If you do get funded, it will be from a foundation or think tank and you'll be discredited because the funding source may, at some time in the past, have received a gift from an oil company. (Of course, government funding is NEVER tainted!)
As for kinesin, I'm not a biophysicist and therefore not competent to comment on it. But I'll bet even that isn't settled. As Karl Popper pointed out, any theory that can't at least conceptually be refuted -- by either evidence or reasoning -- isn't science; it's faith.
Posted By: Randy
Date: 2009-07-13 15:36:25
Who the hell let this self-proclaiming libertarian on here? I thought we had a friggin test to weed out these left wing loonies. Now we have a Bill Maher robot, self-proclaiming libertarian / closet socialist defending kindergarden science. If you don't understand that the carbon tax is simply a way for the liberals to pay for universal healthcare, and will not and is not intended to cut back on carbon dioxide then you are quite dense.
It seems we need a new litmus test not only for "Scientists" but also "libertarians".
Posted By: trd
Date: 2009-07-13 15:48:04
If Pluto's classification as a major planet was an accident of history, then couln't AGW be also an accident of history?
If the "ice age" hype in the '70s was journalistic, then couln't the AGW be the hype of today?
With regards to natural catastrophes like the possible Yellowsone Caldera the important question is if AGW exists, what is its percentage as compared to the natural disaster contribution. If AGW does exist and its percentage is less than 1% of NGW, then AGW is irrelevant even if it exists.
With regards to your models, they are ill-conditioned because you can't predict the future. Also, you can always adjust your parameters and variables to reach YOUR desired result if you are already biased towards your already achieved conclusion. And I am not even considering the debugging part of your models nor the exclusiong of variables that you forgot to include in your model nor the simplification of thousands of variables into one dimention or two.
I know nothing about radiative balance. Heck I know nothing about AGW either!!! But I do know something about modeling and simulation (about 15 years of it). Among other models, I have done complex calculations and non-linear time-domain simulation models for a now-bankrupt big automotive company on the hydraulics of automatic transmissions to calculate time-domain flow and pressure in each of the spool valves, solenoids, orifices, clutches, the torque converter and the lubrication passages. Even though such a model with hundreds of parameters and variables it is NOT ill-conditioned. However, there were always unaccounted factors that unless compared with the actual flow and pressure measurements of the test lab one can not adjust to it. The whole process was iteractive and corrective between simulation and test until the model was validated with tests so that it can be used in another transmission model for futre development products. I made lots of mistakes in the process for which I had to do a lot of debugging but I have also made lots of validated simulation models that cut the development and test times in automatic transmission.
Have you validated your models? If so, how?
I was able to validate my models in the transmission lab with an actual transmission, a transmission dynomometer and calibrated instruments in a controlled environment as well as in the proving grounds with the actual vehicle on a race circuit. Also they have been validated using the warranty statistics of the customer's cars that regular people are driving on a daily basis. You may be driving a vehicle in which a transmission has been simulated by me. Millions of vehicles are driving all over the world with transmissions that I have simulated and validated. Are you afraid yet?
For the case of AGW, I find it hard to see a way to validate your models unless you started your modeling decades ago. My time domain for my models was in milli-seconds, seconds, minutes or hours. Then for fatigue cycle simulation we go to millions of cycles. All of that could quickly be validated in a lab. Your AGW time domain is in decades or centuries which is way beyond the scope of a good validated simluation. So I can't seem to find a way for you to validate your models.
That is why I find it hard to be convinced about AGW if it exists. I can't validate or prove it. NEVERTHELESS, I CAN'T DISPROVE IT EITHER. That is why at this point I tend to go against the existance of AGW, BUT with an understanding that I COULD be WRONG! You, on the other hand, based on your readings, studiying and models are convinced in AGW but with a BELIEVE that you can't be wrong.
That is why I see the whole AGW more as a belief than science.
Posted By: trd
Date: 2009-07-13 16:07:37
Randy:
The author: Mr B.S. could still be labeled a libertarian and belief or support AGW. Just because you are not agreeing with him, that does not make him less of a libertarian. He could still be in favor of limited government and freedom.
I don't think the author supports cap and trade or any of that extra taxation stuff, does he? He is only supporting the existence of AGW. Thats it.
Posted By: Ben Kalafut
Date: 2009-07-13 16:12:09
Phil Manger:
And since the population was growing, not declining, by the global warming alarmists' reasoning, the earth should have continued to warm instead of cooling down into the Little Ice Age. There are enough other phenomena (such as a high correlation of temperature with sunspot activity) that cast doubt on AGW, that it can hardly be accepted as "settled".
I don't give a damn about "global warming alarmists'" reasoning. I only care about climate scientists and their reasoning. Maybe some knuckle dragger out there really does think that human growth will always overwhelm natural effects and cause warming, but you won't find that in the scientific literature and that is not the structure of the scientific argument. Nice straw man argument, great illustration of denialist tactics, there.
I'll leave the dispute over whether or not there was a global MWP and Little Ice Age aside for the moment to remark: AGW is not the proposition that all warmings are anthropogenic, nor does it require that all warmings be caused by the greenhouse effect. So that there is no upswing of CO2 associated with the possible MWP is not trouble.
Regarding solar cycles, I think I know what paper you're thinking about. (Why don't you tell me, and I can address it directly.) Go back to it and you will find that it found, if the warming signal is removed, that short term fluctuations over a particular continent correlate with the solar cycle. That's interesting, but it doesn't at all provide an alternate explanation for warming. You are mistaken in thinking it casts doubt on the AGW thesis. It causes people to doubt it, certainly, but only because said people are taking the findings out of context, and then following an irrational line of thought. Causing people who are in error to doubt something isn't the same as casting doubt on it, at least not to me.
Re: funding--again that's a very strong accusation, which calls for evidence.
Anonymous coward "Randy":
If I needed any confirmation that you were a mere flasher, that's it. Please keep it in your pants. Thanks.
Trd:
The models being used are not mine. I invite you to read some of the original papers to both learn that they are not fit to the observational data and to see why the people working on this trust the models.
It's ridiculous (and possibly dilatory) to demand or expect that we wait decades before taking modeling seriously. It's not "hard to see" how these models are validated. We have a data set already--the observational record--and the models are validated against this data set.
I do not know how to measure some percentage relative to a "natural disaster contribution". Presumably the Yellowstone eruption's effects will be transient, just as (the much smaller) Pinatubo's were.
The relatively non-transient anthropogenic effect is what we have to worry about for now, and the possibility of disaster perturbations doesn't change that. To claim that it does is akin to saying it's OK to stand in the middle of the freeway in the path of a truck, because there's also a chance of being hit by a meteorite.
Posted By: Ben Kalafut
Date: 2009-07-13 16:19:55
TRD:
Actually, I'm on the fence between a carbon tax and cap-and-trade, but the cap-and-trade proposal I would support is quite a bit different than Waxman-Markey.
There's nothing libertarian about not changing the rules of the market when they are found to be inadequate. Hence the school of "free market environmentalism" which aims to merely change the law to eliminate negative externalities.
You'll find quite a few libertarians and economic liberals in Mankiw's "Pigou Club" of carbon-tax supporters. Most notable among them is Gary Becker.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-07-13 16:40:45
"Their object is not the scientist's or skeptic's search for truth; their object is to disagree with and deny what our best science says is happening and to find, make up, or pretend to have found anything to support such denial."
The clear implication behind the author's statement is that if you don't support AGW, you oppose the best science, but if you oppose AGW, no matter your level of scientific expertise or knowledge, you oppose the best science. I can't say that I've ever heard a more biased, anti-scientific description of science than this in many, many years. The "best science" is not dependent upon who supports what theory. It's based on solid, indisputable proof...something which both sides lack.
Your "scientific" bias is showing, B.S.
Posted By: gene
Date: 2009-07-13 17:11:43
Hi Ben,
I am still doing research on the cap and trade purposal, so correct me if I am wrong.
It is my understanding that the feds will "award" the basic credits to industry. In other words, they will be given "credits" to allow an amount of emissions. The plan is to eventually "auction" these credits. If we look at programs like this historically, as I mentioned the "royalty" fees, etc., when Congress initiates a program with leniency, it usually gets even less stringent through time. It always becomes easier to "postpone" the meat of the program to please industry and still have the program in name to please the public.
The distribution is not very consistent and big polluters are "given" the credits while smaller polluters will still be regulated under the clean air act, etc.
The credits have value yet will be "given" out. So, the handout is a subsidy whether a company decides to "sell" its credits or not.
What is the logic of "awarding" credits to enable a corporation to do what we are considering harm and injury? The emissions are either harmful or they aren't and if they are whoever is harmed should receive "compensation" or the harm ceased.
My views tend to geo-libertarian, so a real carbon tax levied at the resource extraction level would be a better solution and would eliminate the need to determine what or who causes global warming.
Posted By: Phil Manger
Date: 2009-07-13 17:35:08
Ben Kalafut,
This goes back a couple of posts. You said,
There is no such thing as "honest debate" in science. Debate is considered dishonest in science and is usually called for by those who don't have much to their position.I just pulled out this article from my own field (economics): "The Present State of the Debate" by F. A. Hayek in Collectivist Economic Planning (1935). The "debate" referred to here was the one generated by Ludwig von Mises' demonstration, in 1920, that a planned economy would never work because, with no price system, economic calculation was impossible. Most economists, led by Oskar Lange and Fred Taylor, disagreed with Mises, but, as subsequent events proved, Mises eventually won (although he didn't live to enjoy his victory).
So, are you saying economists are dishonest?
Re: your last post,
Re: funding--again that's a very strong accusation, which calls for evidence.See the quote from Richard Lindzen in my article. Obviously, I haven't done a survey to find out how many scientists had their grant proposals turned down for political reasons.
Posted By: David S
Date: 2009-07-13 19:09:00
B.S. Kalafut your answers are obnoxious and offensive and typical of those who support AGW. I didn't say anything offensive to you but you immediately attacked me and called me a liar. I didn't lie about anything. I showed you the source for the Manhattan Declaration. Where is the lie in that? I told you about Professor Lindzen's statement. Where is the lie in that? If you don't believe it I can send you the video where he says it. Show me where I lied.
Don't ever call me a liar again unless you want to get called things far worse.
Posted By: Ben Kalafut
Date: 2009-07-13 19:30:58
Walt Thiessen wrote:
"Their object is not the scientist's or skeptic's search for truth; their object is to disagree with and deny what our best science says is happening and to find, make up, or pretend to have found anything to support such denial."
The clear implication behind the author's statement is that if you don't support AGW, you oppose the best science, but if you oppose AGW, no matter your level of scientific expertise or knowledge, you oppose the best science.
The "Quoting out of context" award of the day goes to none other than the site owner! The rest of that passage should make what I am actually saying very clear. What I am not saying is that honest dissent isn't possible. What I am saying is that an overwhelming majority of the dissenters are not honest.
Phil Manger wrote:
So, are you saying economists are dishonest?
Economics is your field and not mine, but as I understand it economists don't settle things by debate, whether or not Hayek used that word in a paper title.
If they do act as debaters--choosing sides ahead of time and using whatever works, good or bad, to bring support to that side--then they are dishonest. This is the accusation the Left makes about economists, that they choose sides and work backwards. I don't believe it applies.
The doubters/denialists routinely call for debates. Putting aside the dishonesty in choosing a side and working backwards, the debate format doesn't lend itslelf well to physical science. The arguments are too intricate, too mathematical, and too dependent on the data.
anonymous coward David S. wrote:
B.S. Kalafut your answers are obnoxious and offensive and typical of those who support AGW. I didn't say anything offensive to you but you immediately attacked me and called me a liar. I didn't lie about anything. I showed you the source for the Manhattan Declaration. Where is the lie in that? I told you about Professor Lindzen's statement. Where is the lie in that? If you don't believe it I can send you the video where he says it. Show me where I lied.
Don't ever call me a liar again unless you want to get called things far worse.
Is it typical of AGW supporters to catch you in a lie, David S., or was this a one-time thing? I stand by my statement that you are a liar. You said that a certain document was a refutation of a theory, I followed your link and found that it was not.
It's not that they tried to refute a theory and I think they fell short or I disagree with their conclusion. It's that that's not what that document is.
If I were to hand you the phone book and told you it was a table of integrals, I'd be a liar. That's what you did, except you did so in such a way as to feign evidence for your position, too. If I did that professionally, e.g. saying that a reference contained something when it didn't, that would additionally be considered serious professional conduct and have implications for my career.
I caught you in a lie. If you don't want to be called a liar, don't lie. It's that simple. Maybe you'll tell me it was an honest mistake, but it'd be an awful stretch, to take a one page position statement, most of which is about public policy, to be a refutation of a theory.
Posted By: Ben Kalafut
Date: 2009-07-13 19:40:16
gene (de nardo?):
Yes, you're right about the cap-and-trade proposal in the Waxman-Markey bill. I'm also sympathetic to the geo-libertarian position even though I don't hold it myself.
The annual de novo issuing of permits amounts to a perpetual subsidy to those already in the market. If the permits were issued only once, in a manner not unlike homesteading, recognizing current use, and good for emissions per year as opposed to emissions in a single year, that wouldn't be the case. Or, as you say, a simple tax works, too, and is attractive both for geo-libertarian reasons and for the reasons the "Pigou Club" folks are on board.
A few of the fisheries management schemes have single-issue permits good for a certain catch per year, but far more--and the tradeable permits scheme that worked so well in combatting acid rain--had annual re-issue of permits good for quantities and not annual rates of emissions. Unfortunately that means that the bulk of economic study of cap-and-trade has been devoted to systems like that in Waxman-Markey.
Posted By: Ben Kalafut
Date: 2009-07-13 20:04:38
Phil Manger wrote:
See the quote from Richard Lindzen in my article. Obviously, I haven't done a survey to find out how many scientists had their grant proposals turned down for political reasons.
Has Lindzen ever substantiated that?
Last I checked both Roy Spencer and Robert Balling, for example, were still producing good research and getting it published, this despite wild statements to the press, etc. They seem to be funded by someone, thats for sure. It would seem that the scientific community is being extremely fair to the point where censure for what could be considered unprofessional conduct in statements to the press and about fellow scientists is just about nonexistent.
Balling gets heaps of money from the private sector, and hasn't published on AGW itself (or updated his gripes) for years. Some might detect a "racket" in that, but that would be wild speculation. Fred Singer (like Fred Seitz before him!) is easier to read--on tobacco, the ozone hole, and AGW, contrarian like clockwork--and is hardly research active anymore, but even his trickle of involvement continues to be published. And Lindzen, who is still doing research on AGW, is being published.
Posted By: gene
Date: 2009-07-13 20:18:30
Hi Ben, good points. I am going to write a quick article about the issue. if you get a chance, give it a read and let me know what you think.
Posted By: David S
Date: 2009-07-13 21:17:18
Most people are not climate scientists so we have to rely on the opinions of people who are climate scientists. Al Gore claims the debate is over and that the science is settled and that no serious scientists disput the AGW theory. The Manhattan Declaration refutes that point. The declaration states the conclusion of the many scientists who endorsed it.
Our government is about to enact legislation to control CO2 which may have far reaching effects on our lives. The legislation is motivated by the belief that the vast majority of scientists support the AGW theory. But obviously many scientists do not support the theory, and it was the intent of the declaration to prove that. It was not intended to be a scientific paper.
If you want to discuss the science we can do that too. I would start with this:
The Vostok Ice Core data does indeed show a correlation between temperature and CO2 levels. However, a correlation does not prove cause and effect. Al Gore claims the CO2 causes warming but the data shows the warming preceeds the CO2 by 200 to 1000 years. And in the cooling phases the temperature can drop significantly while CO2 levels remain high for thousands of years. Those facts are noted in the abstract that accompanies the Vostok data;
"
Abstract:
Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 +/- 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere." (Emphasis mine)http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/vostokco2.htmlSo the CO2 increase could not have caused the warming.
BTW You still haven't provided a list of scientists who support AGW theory.
Posted By: Ben Kalafut
Date: 2009-07-14 00:29:55
David S:
That's better.
If those people on that list had scientific arguments, scientific reasons for their positions, then it would mean that there was no scientific consensus. Scientific consensus isn't the same as consensus of "scientists", whoever scientists are.
No, I'm not going to produce a list--or pad it with irrelevant names as seems to have been done with the Manhattan thing. (Frank Tipler is no more a climatologist than I am...)
Yes, there have been warmings in the past in which greenhouse gases were a feedback and not the primary forcing. That is in no way a refutation of AGW nor a statement that an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations cannot cause a warming. AGW is not the thesis that every warming on earth has been anthropogenic.
Posted By: Peter Ravenscroft
Date: 2009-07-14 05:40:15
I am not really fussed if you call us deniers, cane toads or fermented fruitloops, but if you would like to see one version of what the geomagnetic climate driver argument is actually about, go to http://www.freewebs.com/psravenscroft/. For the maps that underpin the case, go to http://www.pool.org.au/group/climate_change. That lot eis all gueswork, but if it stands up, it rather neatly explains both current change and the ice ages, which latter, AGW cannot even touch. So, it may just be the missing main driver. What it and the real time-series map data do say though, is that the carbonist hypothesis is invalid.
Bothered about sea level rise? Go measure the groundwater loss volumes. Those are not easy to fix, but they certainly exceed the annual melt from both continental icecaps.
Posted By: Ted Slack
Date: 2009-07-14 07:03:51
Whenever I see "consensus" in a sentence regarding science, I instantly know that the writer has no comprehension of science. Consensus is of absolutely no value to science.
Posted By: Randy
Date: 2009-07-14 07:57:36
Anybody that believes in AGW is most likely not libertarian. Do you know why? Because everyone in the hack community that wishes to defend this kindergarden science and is actually informed is not looking for truth, they are only looking for more government funding. The last thing we need right now is more money going out the door to fund these parasites. We might as well give unlimited sums of money to the Christian Coalition to find evidence of the Existence of God.
Posted By: trd
Date: 2009-07-14 08:20:50
BS:
Let me see if I understand your statement. If Balling, Spencer or Lindzen get heaps of money from the private sector and reach a conclusion which is either anti-AGW or neutral (no conclusion), then that's 'bad' science. But if others receive public grant money (our money) and reach a conclusion in favor of AGW, then they are a 'real' scientists?
I don't know about you, but in my view scientists should ALL receive PRIVATE money to study whatever they or their contributors feel like. They shold reach their own conclusions whether in favor, against or neutral regardless of their contributor. If as a result of the research there is money to be made from new developments or new technology, then they and their funding partners should reap the benefits.
What we should be agaisnt is the use of public money (our money) to research. Because, if the research suggest more taxes like in 'cap and trade' or carbon taxes, then that means more money from the public robbed for research so that they can rob more money from us. It's like a vicious cycle. So it blurrs the purpose of research because then the scientist is motivated to publish why he needs more public money to do more research so that he or she can get more public money... By default, the scientist's judgement is skewed by the economic and political factors. Isn't that the point that Phil Manger is trying to state on the economic side?
Whether be it be AGW, a cure for cancer, marine biology, aircrafts, wind turbine, geo-thermal energy, river bed current or tidal energy, stem-cell research, or whatever, it should all be PRIVATELY funded.
So instead of wasting all that tax-payer money in research that will get us nowhere or worst will get us to more taxes, we should let the PRIVATE sector to invest in other forms of energy generation, which they are currently doing.
Posted By: trd
Date: 2009-07-14 08:41:39
Randy:
That's a good point. We should NOT give public money to the Christian Coalition to research the existance of a god. Nevertheless, the Christian Coalition receives PLENTY of PRIVATE money for their own things so they really don't need it. AGW on the other hand, does not receive as much money PRIVATELY than possibly the Christian Coalition.
However, on the matters of faith you can believe in a god, multiple gods or none at all and still be a libertarian. A libertarian will respect the right of his fellow citizen to believe in whatever they feel like as long as is not imposed on others by force nor taxed (robbed) to fund their research or beliefs.
Therefore you can still believe or research AGW and still be a libertarian as long as you are receving PRIVATE funding and are not asking to rob the public in the form of more TAXES to fund your research.
However, the author believes in the tax-me more for AGW research so on that aspect he might be getting far away from a libertarian view. Nevertheless he may still be libertarian in other aspects. His dot on the Nolan Chart is not at the extreme top. So he may still have libertarian leanings but not a full hard-core liubertarian.
Libertarians do not have to agree in all points. Some libertarians are complete anarcho-capitalists others believe in limited government which implies there is still some form of government. Some libertarians are atheist, some are faithful believers and contributors to their local church. There are different levels and we can't expect to have each and every one of the libertarians to be singing at the same tune because then that would not be libertarian.
Posted By: Randy
Date: 2009-07-14 12:44:57
"This speculation about warming happening from the ground up is actually a new one on me, and it\'s patently ridiculous." Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
The air does not heat the oceans; the oceans heat the air; because the oceans have a thousand times as much heat capacity as the atmosphere. Oceans overwhelm all other influences on climate. Oceans, being 70% of the earth's surface, are the climate regulators influencing air temperature, humidity and precipitation. Yet the IPCC did not account for the effects of oceans, because they had no data or theory to go by, and they couldn't handle that much complexity. The total fraud of the IPCC is demonstrated by this fact.
The atmosphere is only 0.04% carbon dioxide, of which only 3% stems from human activity. Therefore, human activity cannot create global warming stemming from carbon dioxide, though natural causes of global warming certainly can exist.
The oceans regulate CO2 in the atmosphere to the minutest detail, as indicated by an El Nino in the Pacific Ocean, which causes CO2 measurements in the air to increase, and then they renormalize when the El Nino disappears. When an El Nino shows up in the Pacific Ocean as a hot water mass, Central and South America get flooded due to increased evaporation from the ocean. Now, an El Nina is in the Pacific as a cold water mass, and it is creating cold weather and droughts. Scientists don't know what creates El Ninos and El Ninas. So they don't have a clue as to what's controlling the climate.
Temperature is irrelevant; only precipitation matters, and it has been increasing due to warmer oceans.The oceans are heating up drastically, and the atmosphere only slightly, as indicated by polar ice caps melting and increased rainfall. Important is the fact that ice submerged in ocean is melting, yet land ice has been thickening as shown in Antartica and Greenland. This points to a hot spot in the earth's core heating the oceans, not human activity. A very significant point of evidence is that recent ice ages have been cycling at 100 thousand year intervals. Environmental causes would not be so consistent. But convection in the earth's core could produce very precise repetitious cycles.
Take a look at satellite data of temperature readings. Any increase is so miniscule its negligible. Of course, you could take your reading in inner cities where asphault creates an convection oven and get the spike in temperature your after rather than a nearby rural area. A trick the climate clowns employ.
Posted By: Randy
Date: 2009-07-14 13:10:39
trd, sorry, I don\'t mean to imply that all libertarians must think alike and aren\'t one of those that believe in the need for a national party stance on issues which would certainly ostrecize half the party. Although I do think we can all agree limited government is essential to the philosophy. Any increase in government and taxes tends to send off my spidey senses, especially when its based on a faulty premise.
Posted By: Ben Kalafut
Date: 2009-07-14 13:44:48
Ted Slack:
Whenever I see "consensus" in a sentence regarding science, I instantly know that the writer has no comprehension of science. Consensus is of absolutely no value to science.
You do know that such statements about my having "no comprehension" of science do verge on actionable libel, do you not?
That's a cute defense mechanism you have, shutting down when there is talk of "consensus", but ask yourself why philosophers and sociologists of science concern themselves with it. It's a part of the process whether you like it or not and mention of it is appeal to modesty.
Randy:
Usually (anecdotally) the "penis graffiti" set quits when they're called on what they're doing. Not you.
TRD:
Perhaps you'll understand why I think people should attach their names and reputations to their statements. You wrote:
Let me see if I understand your statement. If Balling, Spencer or Lindzen get heaps of money from the private sector and reach a conclusion which is either anti-AGW or neutral (no conclusion), then that's 'bad' science. But if others receive public grant money (our money) and reach a conclusion in favor of AGW, then they are a 'real' scientists?
I'd have had to have been drunk to have wrote something like what you accuse me of writing, but I was not; I was up late revising an article for Proc SPIE. Go back and re-read what I wrote; I did nowhere assert or imply that funding determines the quality of the science.
Therefore you can still believe or research AGW and still be a libertarian as long as you are receving PRIVATE funding and are not asking to rob the public in the form of more TAXES to fund your research.
However, the author believes in the tax-me more for AGW research so on that aspect he might be getting far away from a libertarian view. Nevertheless he may still be libertarian in other aspects. His dot on the Nolan Chart is not at the extreme top. So he may still have libertarian leanings but not a full hard-core liubertarian.
The Nolan Chart was never even validated as a positive measure of political tendency and to treat it as some normative statement of what a libertarian is dubious. To treat that top point as the normative "full libertarian" is even more erroneous. The nature of the Nolan Chart quiz makes it even more erroneous. People who understand subtleties and "maybes", situational caveats and the like end up away from the edges. Ideologues, people all too willing to say "always and everywhere X and I don't care about your damn subtleties" end up closer to the edges simply by their refusal to slow down. I'd guess that neither Epstein nor Nozick, two of libertarianism's top philosophers would end up at that top point. (Can't ask Nozick anymore!) Yet you would have them not being "full" libertarians. And I'm happy to know that you don't take me to be a "hard core" libertarian, as most of the people I know who use that label to describe their own tendencies are boorish bozos.
Now this is twice that you draw a conclusion about my position that is wholly unsupported by what I wrote. The first was when you wrote that I believe that good science is determined by either the source of funding or the conclusion. And now you draw some inference about my thoughts on science funding where I not given my thoughts on the matter at all.
The all-caps "shouting" and other wildness aside, you've been reasonably respectful in this discussion until now, so I'd like to think you are being sloppy and not deliberately dishonest. But please do not make up for me positions that I have not taken.
Randy:
The air does not heat the oceans; the oceans heat the air; because the oceans have a thousand times as much heat capacity as the atmosphere.
I happen to be the instructor for a correspondence course in freshman (college) physics offered by the University of Arizona. I invite you to take it. And I won't hold your unpleasantness against you if you do. Getting beyond your trollish "flasher" behavior, it seems as though your jumbled understanding of the basics is affecting your position on this matter. I'd encourage you to simply read the literature, but it's somewhat clear that your understanding of basic physics is lacking.
Posted By: B. S. Kalafut
Date: 2009-07-14 15:57:21
Peter Ravenscroft:
Life is too short and my time is too valuable to waste on people who refuse to participate in the social process of science, who do not bother with ethical and rhetorical norms of science. Outside my own field, unless someone is either writing a paper, presenting at a conference, or acting only as an interpreter for the literature, I have no time for him. (In my own field, if someone is conducting serious research with the intent to publish, I also have time for him.) I have no time for claims made by those who are too cowardly to present them to the relevant experts, nor for claims too weak to be made before the relevant experts.
If you are confident that you are onto something, write a paper for e.g. Geophysical Research Letters, and get back to me.
Posted By: JeffM
Date: 2009-07-14 16:58:46
In the 1970s we had the global cooling scare, driven by decreasing global temps. That passed and was replaced with the global warming scare, driven by 20 years of increasing global temps, at least until 1998. Since 1998, when temperatures stopped rising and began to fall, we’ve seen 10 years of global cooling (or climate change to be more PC). This is odd, because CO2 levels have increased relentlessly over the past 100 years, as human industrial output grew. Global Climate Models say this should not be happening. Even so, nearly every scientist on the planet says the Earth is getting hotter and hotter, or so we’re told. It seems also odd that scientists who are openly skeptical of the ability of CO2 to cause any significant warming receive NO Federal funding. Why do you suppose this is? Money and power? Already, we see developed countries of the world ramping up to build and sell “green” products. It’s becoming a new industry driven by global warming that stopped 10 years ago. Google and read “Fable of the Roasted Pig” to see the similarity between “fact” and fiction. Why do you suppose this is? Money and power?
Posted By: Ben Kalafut
Date: 2009-07-14 20:41:14
Anonymous coward "JeffM":
This is why I wonder whether or not your side has any shame---so much of what you write is either plainly false or has been debunked over and over.
In the 1970s we had the global cooling scare, driven by decreasing global temps. That passed and was replaced with the global warming scare, driven by 20 years of increasing global temps,
In the 1970s we did not know either way and a strong claim was not made either way. See e.g. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/global-cooling-again/ for starters. "Some journalists in the 1970s thought global cooling was coming, therefore scientists aren't to be believed now"--is that what you're after? Sorry, that doesn't make the cut.
driven by 20 years of increasing global temps
No, driven by our understanding of the physics of the earth system, particularly the greenhouse effect. The worry about AGW is not scientists looking at the thermometer and saying "oh my god, it's warming!" Climatologists are not that stupid.
at least until 1998. Since 1998, when temperatures stopped rising and began to fall, we’ve seen 10 years of global cooling (or climate change to be more PC).
When you make this claim you reveal yourself either to totally not know what you are talking about or to be arguing in bad faith. Which is it? This has been knocked into oblivion, over and over and over. We don't treat warming/cooling by taking the difference of two yearly global mean surface temperatures. The methodology you apply here is 100% invalid.
This is odd, because CO2 levels have increased relentlessly over the past 100 years, as human industrial output grew. Global Climate Models say this should not be happening.
What's a capital-letter "Global Climate Model"? I've never seen one of those. (That's not what GCM stands for.) But anyway, ignoring the capital letters, you would claim that climatologists do not understand that 1998 was particularly warm due to El Nino?
But if you really think they're claiming warming by your methodology (that has cooling happening since 1998), then you must think that what they're claiming is that each year is warmer than the last. Again, it's like you're assuming that climatologists and those of us who are watching them are patently stupid.
It seems also odd that scientists who are openly skeptical of the ability of CO2 to cause any significant warming receive NO Federal funding.
If by "openly skeptical of" you mean "openly disagree with", then this would make sense, as a scientist who does not understand the greenhouse effect is only fit to wash glassware.
Why do you suppose this is? Money and power? Already, we see developed countries of the world ramping up to build and sell “green” products. It’s becoming a new industry driven by global warming that stopped 10 years ago.
Ahh...conspiracy theory. *yawn*...
Google and read “Fable of the Roasted Pig”
Here's where it's at. You repeat four falsehoods (global cooling scare, worry about warming is due to temperatures, warming has stopped, warming means every year without fail), shamelessly, without any tongue-in-cheek tone, falsehoods that are soundly explained to be falsehoods in many publicly accessible plain-language sources, falsehoods that you have no excuse whatsoever for believing, and topping that off you don't even associate your statement with your name and reputation, and then you tell me what I should read? That takes gall.
Posted By: Randy
Date: 2009-07-15 06:56:41
BS - been there, done that bud. Since you are so insistent on avoiding any facts laid out by myself and others and only attacking character, I will leave you to what you do best - polluting a classroom with your hot air.
Posted By: B. S. Kalafut
Date: 2009-07-15 13:29:21
Randy:
BS - been there, done that bud. Since you are so insistent on avoiding any facts laid out by myself and others and only attacking character, I will leave you to what you do best - polluting a classroom with your hot air.
It ain't attacking character to say that you got the basics wrong, and you haven't laid out any facts whatsoever. Mistakes, fumblings, and mouth foaming about climatologists weather girls are not "facts." (And given the nature of your first few posts here, that you try to take the high road now is simply ridiculous.)
If you've really "been there, done that", you must either have failed the class or forgotten everything since. The statement "The air does not heat the oceans; the oceans heat the air; because the oceans have a thousand times as much heat capacity as the atmosphere." belies a total lack of understanding of the most basic thermodynamics. "Heat capacity" does not govern what object heats what other object when they are placed in some sort of thermal contact. That is governed only by the temperature difference or gradient. In fact, your position, were it true, would cause routine violations of the second law of thermodynamics.
That you add several hundred words to your fumbling, that you rationalize it, and devote much labor to this nonsense about earth warming from the inside out doesn't change that you have based it on a fumbling.
Want to convince others of your private little conjecture? Step up to the plate and write a paper. Or at the very least just reference literature supporting your position. Reasoning backwards from your own total misunderstanding of basic thermodynamics just doesn't make the cut. You waste my time asking me to start addressing the "facts", your cute word for your assertions, when you can't be bothered to get the basics right.
If you're expecting me to lead you by the hand through science, to address your fumblings point by point--demanding what amounts to hours of free lessons is a common denialist tactic--you'll have to pay me. All of those "facts" you pull out of your ass after disregarding the second law of thermodynamics, I don't have to deal with those.
Learn the basics, or learn some modesty and courtesy for others, which would have you recognizing that you don't get it and keeping your opinion to yourself rather than leading others astray.
Posted By: Ben Kalafut
Date: 2009-07-15 13:45:18
The folks at "Grist" actually spent some time addressing the fumbling that anonymous coward "Randy" calls "fact":
http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-comes-from-within
Now of course, both he and Buck could have looked that up. But rather than do so, "Randy" wrote dozens of words providing what could be called an apriorist case for his position. And then he balks because I think character matters here and call people on their bad behavior.
Rule of thumb: When you disagree with the experts, it's usually because they are right and you are wrong. Whether or not that is the case, you are well served by learning why they hold their position.
Posted By: Phil Manger
Date: 2009-07-15 15:29:56
B.S. --
I think Randy is right on this one. Air doesn't retain heat very well -- the molecules are too far apart and are in constant motion so any heat received from the sun's rays is quickly dissipated. Liquids retain heat better. The molecules are still in motion, but they are closer together and don't move as rapidly as they do in a gas. Solids, in which the molecules remain in fixed position relative to each other retain heat best of all.
Air close to the surface of the earth gets its heat from the surface, whether it be solid or liquid. If this were not so, temperatures even at the equator would drop to far below freezing the minute the sun went down. Also, as any runner or cyclist can tell you, on a sunny day the air temperature six feet above an asphalt road is much higher than the air temperature six feet above a concrete road. That's because the black asphalt absorbs and retains more of the sun's heat than white concrete, which tends to reflect the sun's energy back as light -- which doesn't heat up the air on its second pass through it, either. It is the solid surface's ability to retain heat that enables it to heat the air.
I know you're going to say this, so I'll go ahead: yes, if you lay an iron bar in a fire, the fire will heat up the iron bar. But this contradicts northing. The iron bar will still retain heat. The flames don't; they must constantly receive fresh fuel in the form of combustible gases.
I really don't see where there is any violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The temperatures tend to equalize -- in fact, that's why the asphalt heats the air and not vice-versa.
.
Posted By: Ben Kalafut
Date: 2009-07-17 11:37:28
Phil Manger:
If you want to use touchy-feely reasoning to understand this, ask yourself why basements and caves are cool relative to daytime outdoor temperatures in the summer.
You get so much of the physics wrong here that it's clear that you haven't bothered to read up on radiative balance, which is one essential thing one must understand to understand the science that tells us Man is warming the planet. If you do not understand radiative balance there is no way you can understand the case that is being made and no way you can have a legitimate opinion on it.If you were to actually bother to read about radiative balance you'd see that there's a kernel of right in your wrong: a lot of that reradiation back into space begins right at the ground. (That's why a two-layer model will get you very far!--and that's why we call it a greenhouse effect.) The ground absorbs radiation and heats up, and re-radiates (on net) both up and down because it is hotter than the atmospehere.
Some of this re-radiated energy is absorbed by the atmosphere which radiates it both up and down. The absorption spectra of CO2, methane, and certain other gases are such that they absorb considerable portions of this thermal radiation from the surface.
You need to be very careful in what you mean by "retain heat better" and not confound it with "heat capacity" which is merely the derivative of an object's heat content with respect to its temperature, divided by the object's mass.
I think Randy is right on this one. Air doesn't retain heat very well -- the molecules are too far apart and are in constant motion so any heat received from the sun's rays is quickly dissipated. Liquids retain heat better. The molecules are still in motion, but they are closer together and don't move as rapidly as they do in a gas. Solids, in which the molecules remain in fixed position relative to each other retain heat best of all.
"Randy" disregards the Second Law, and you almost disregard the first Where does that "dissipated" heat go? How does air dissipate its heat? Why does it dissipate heat in the first place?
The only time heat dissipates is in the presence of a temperature difference/gradient (that's a direct consequence of the second law.) Air dissipates heat by two ways: collisions and radiation. The only objects with which it collides is the "ground" for the sake of this discussion. If we want to talk radiation, we're back to radiative balance, the heart of the matter.
Air close to the surface of the earth gets its heat from the surface, whether it be solid or liquid. If this were not so, temperatures even at the equator would drop to far below freezing the minute the sun went down. Also, as any runner or cyclist can tell you, on a sunny day the air temperature six feet above an asphalt road is much higher than the air temperature six feet above a concrete road. That's because the black asphalt absorbs and retains more of the sun's heat than white concrete, which tends to reflect the sun's energy back as light -- which doesn't heat up the air on its second pass through it, either. It is the solid surface's ability to retain heat that enables it to heat the air.
Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense! You thoroughly confuse radiation and heat. When you speak of "the sun's heat" is where you go wrong. A century and a half late, you're stuck in a "phlogiston theory" mindset. The sun radiates (thermally), that radiation heats both atmosphere and ground, ground radiates back up and heats atmosphere again.
I know you're going to say this, so I'll go ahead: yes, if you lay an iron bar in a fire, the fire will heat up the iron bar. But this contradicts northing. The iron bar will still retain heat. The flames don't; they must constantly receive fresh fuel in the form of combustible gases.
What you see as a "flame" is extremely hot gas, emitting thermal radiation. The reason the flame goes away when you quench the fire is because gases are free to convect; the whole thing cools off by mixing. When this happens the heat content of the gas is still the same!--you've merely mixed a high-temperature gas with a low temperature gas. Remember that heat is energy and energy doesn't go away.
I really don't see where there is any violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The temperatures tend to equalize -- in fact, that's why the asphalt heats the air and not vice-versa.
"Randy"'s claim was that the oceans must heat the air because the oceans have a higher heat capacity. That's wrong, and ridiculously wrong. If and when the oceans heat the air it is only because their temperature is higher.In order to wrap your head around this you need to quit thinking in a touchy-feely way about the physics and start considering energy balance. Curiously you get this almost right, but then you out of nowhere dismiss the possibility of the atmosphere being heated by radiation's passage back out through the atmosphere.
The greenhouse effect is not controversial, and it applies equally to all thermal radiation from the surface no matter the original source. But the heat coming up from the Earth's core (see the Grist) article, which is what this "Randy" character would like us to think is causing global warming, isn't even enough to keep us from freezing in the cold of space let alone to account for warming. That is to say, even if we went from no energy flux outward from the earth's core and mantle to what we see today, we would not see observed 20th C warming.
"Randy" was wrong about his physics and he is wrong about the source of global warming.
This is one of the things that make the public discussion of global warming (and solutions thereof) strange and the work of the professional denialists especially poisonous. One needs to understand some basic physics to understand what's going on, and most people don't. "Folk physics" such as your reasoning about heat retention can give the wrong answer. I'll go one further and say that it reliably gives the wrong answer.
It's possible for a working physicist to be wrong about the basics, but very unlikely for one to be as wrong as you'd have me be. If you have further questions about thermodynamics I invite you to send them to bennett@kalafut.us as questions and I'll take them up, politely, on my 'blog.
If you want to brush up on the basics, I highly recommend the "Conceptual Physics" text by Paul G. Hewitt.
Posted By: Phil Manger
Date: 2009-07-17 17:07:12
"ask yourself why basements and caves are cool relative to daytime outdoor temperatures in the summer."
For the same reason they are warm relative to the outdoor temperatures in winter. The fact that the air in basements and caves never has sunlight passing through it, yet remains warm in the wintertime ought to give you a clue. It gets its heat from the ground. Why is it cooler in summer? Because the air doesn't do much mixing with the outside air.
"If you do not understand radiative balance there is no way you can understand the case that is being made and no way you can have a legitimate opinion on it."
Oh, I can't have a legitimate opinion on global warming? But you can spout off all you want on economics?
All right, "dissipated" probably isn't a scientifically exact term. But the lower the molecular density, the less able a substance is to retain heat. Why do you suppose the air is cooler at higher altitudes? And you make my point rather than refute it when you say "gases are free to convect" as an explanation of why the flame goes away.
Nobody disputes the greenhouse effect. If it were not for the greenhouse effect, all the the sun's heat (pardon me, radiation) would be reflected back into space and air, even at the surface, could not be heated up sufficiently to sustain life. The argument is over whether the carbon dioxide has increased so much as to give us cause for worry. I'm not convinced that it has. The evidence certainly isn't sufficient to justify turning over control of the world economy to a central, unelected world government.
Posted By: Ben Kalafut
Date: 2009-07-18 21:38:21
Phil Manger:
For the same reason they are warm relative to the outdoor temperatures in winter. The fact that the air in basements and caves never has sunlight passing through it, yet remains warm in the wintertime ought to give you a clue. It gets its heat from the ground. Why is it cooler in summer? Because the air doesn't do much mixing with the outside air.
I see that you do understand basements and caves. I don't remember the connection with "Randy"'s conjecture that scientists have got this all wrong and warming is happening from something causing the core or mantle to increase temperature. That's the problem with this touchy-feely stuff.
Oh, I can't have a legitimate opinion on global warming? But you can spout off all you want on economics?
One cannot have an opinion on a question of natural science if one doesn't understand the basics. One cannot say "those scientists are wrong" if one doesn't understand the core of their argument.
And no, I cannot "spout off" all I like about economics. When I do speak or write about economics it is from a position of modesty. Usually when I find myself in disagreement with a real economist (as opposed to fakers from certain heterodox "schools" which substitute dogma for reason and firmness of statement for rigor) it is because he is right and I am wrong. I recognize expertise when I see it. On the other hand, everyone's an expert on global warming. It's heating from the center of the earth...'cause I say so! Oceans are getting hotter from the bottom up. Water heats the air because things with higher heat capacity heat things with lower heat capacity. Let's make this up as we go along. Wheeee! It's fun to have neither humility nor shame! Next I'll try the "David S" tactic and start claiming things for references at random.
The argument is over whether the carbon dioxide has increased so much as to give us cause for worry. I'm not convinced that it has.
Are you not convinced because you haven't bothered to find out why scientists are convinced, or are you not convinced because you have found out why they are convinced and disagree. And if you disagree, why are you not publishing?
The evidence certainly isn't sufficient to justify turning over control of the world economy to a central, unelected world government.
Whoa! It was strange enough that the discussion turned from "Buck is an example of a 'denialist'" to "here's my private conjecture for why all of them scientists are wrong, and I'm right, despite my having done no intellectual heavy lifting." Now it turns off into schizo territory!
I cannot say that nobody is proposing turning over control of the world economy to a central world government. There are enough cranks out there that someone is probably proposing that solution. But proposing that the economy be controlled, let alone by a world government, is so far out of the mainstream that it's somewhat silly to bring up. The mainstream proposals tend to be bounded by carbon taxes or some form or another of cap-and-trade.
Here it's not a case of the sufficiency of the evidence for AGW--we have heaps of evidence, the case is mature and strong, and bona fide doubters--ones who understand the case and disagree or find it insufficient for reasons other than a personal mistake--are like needles in haystacks. One-world government and a controlled economy are separate questions from this that would have to be justified independently from the scientific question.
Or are you saying that evidence for AGW is evidence in favor of a controlled economy and one-world government? The connection seems batshit insane, but rather than "spout off" about economics I'll let you make the case: why is evindence for AGW evidence in support of one-world government and a centrally controlled economy?