Shallow science and its victims
More from last week’s International Conference on Climate Change in New York (which I wrote about here)-- the one that was supposed to have ben attended by just a handful of cranks who don’t agree that it’s environmental apocalypse now:
Willie Soon, a Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist with scores of peer-reviewed papers and books to his credit, said he is ‘embarrassed and puzzled’ by the shallow science in papers that undergird the proposition that the Earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming. Soon told the second International Conference on Climate Change here, ‘We have a system (of peer reviewing scientific literature) that is truly, truly appalling.’
... [John]Sununu and Soon both said global warming alarmists, particularly the politicians and the few scientists who wrote the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, have captured the scientific paper process, and in Sununu's words, have been successful in ‘taking control of who gets funding, who gets published, who gets acclaimed, and who gets demonized.’
And in a keynote address Lord Monckton delivered this impassioned if despairing plea for reason:
Last summer, just as the President of the Royal Society, the world’s oldest taxpayer-funded pressure-group, was telling us, ‘Global warming is happening now,’ global temperatures had already been plunging for nearly seven years, at a rate equivalent to almost 4 Fahrenheit degrees per century. Has your favourite news medium reported that? Probably not. Maybe that’s why the President of the Royal Society didn’t know. He doesn’t get his science from the learned journals. He gets it from the media.
Just as Tony Bliar [sic] was announcing on his blog that ‘global warming is getting worse,’ just as Al Gore was testifying before the Senate--during an ice-storm--that we face a ‘climate crisis,’ global temperatures plummeted still more. They have been plummeting at a rate equivalent to 11 Fahrenheit degrees per century throughout the four years since Gore launched his mawkish, sci-fi comedy horror B-movie. At this rate, by mid-century we shall roasting in a new Ice Age.
... Thirty years ago, the soi-disant ‘Greens’ agitated for DDT to be banned. They killed 40 million people of malaria, most of them children. Eventually, after a third of a century, the WHO at last caved in to humanitarian pressure from me and others and reversed the ban. Dr. Arata Kochi, announcing the end of that murderous ban, said, ‘Usually in this field politics comes first and science second. Now we must take a stand on the science and the data.’
...Now the very same soi-disant ‘Greens’ are killing millions by starvation in a dozen of the world’s poorest regions. Their biofuel scam, a nasty by-product of their shoddy, senseless, failed, falsified, fraudulent ‘global warming’ bugaboo, has turned millions of acres of agricultural land from growing food for humans to growing fuel for automobiles. If we let them, they will carelessly kill tens of millions more by pursuing Osamabamarama’s stated ambition of shutting down nine-tenths of the economies of the West and flinging us back to the Stone Age without even the right to light fires in our caves. The prosperity of the West is not only our sustenance. It is also the very lifeblood of the struggling nations of the Third World. If our economies fail, we are inconvenienced, but they die.
Indeed; man-made global warming -- the indulgence of an intelligentsia for whom conscience is a fashion accessory – is not just an intellectual fraud but has consequences, already fatal, for the wretched of the earth.
Previous
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (50)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Popular Blog Posts
1 Britain’s AWOL ally - Fraser Nelson
2 Carry on camping - Peter Hoskin
3 A phonecall to Kelly looks better than not mentioning expenses - Peter Hoskin
Search this blog
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'Londonistan', published by Encounter and Gibson Square.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
Melanie Phillips blog archive
sponsored links
GASCONY
GASCONY, SW France, near Condom-en-Armagnac 13th Century stone house, 21st Century luxury for 12 in 5 en-suites. 50 acres +
BIG SAND STEEL BAND
IF YOU ARE PLANNING A CHAMPAGNE RECEPTION and looking for some light entertainment, you can now hire London's busiest steel
BOSC LEBAT, Tarn et Garonne.
BOSC LEBAT, SW France. Only 45 minutes from Toulouse Airport with daily flights from most provincial airports avoiding the horrors
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2009 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Pot Head
March 15th, 2009 10:49pmIs that pathetic tirade the best you can do?
DM
March 15th, 2009 10:49pmit just goes to show, you can't be too careful
Vision Aforethought
March 15th, 2009 11:39pmWhile the posts related to Israel and Jews are in general spot on, on this issue, I believe we have to disagree.
Many of us are concerned about climate change (in particular pollution) simply because we have observed it with our own eyes/senses, and wish to do something about it. And most of those I know who care, are certainly not in it for the money or any desire to control or tax anyone until alternatives are available. IE, impose a carbon tax once sustainable energy alternatives are available.
No matter whether said climate change is man made or not, working towards a more sustainable future will harm no one.
Biofuels are indeed a force for bad and I have been arguing with my friends about that for several years.
Vision Aforethought
March 15th, 2009 11:44pm(Sorry if I posted this twice, I cannot remember if I hit the submit button!)
While the posts related to Israel and Jews are in general spot on, on this issue, I believe we have to disagree.
Many of us are concerned about climate change (in particular pollution) simply because we have observed it with our own eyes/senses, and wish to do something about it. And most of those I know who care, are certainly not in it for the money or any desire to control or tax anyone until alternatives are available. IE, impose a carbon tax once sustainable energy alternatives are available.
No matter whether said climate change is man made or not, working towards a more sustainable future will harm no one.
Biofuels are indeed a force for bad and I have been arguing with my friends about that for several years.
antoniososa
March 16th, 2009 2:08amMore and more scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. More than 650 international scientists dissented last year over the man-made global warming claims. They are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
In addition to the 650 dissenting international scientists, 32,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…" http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html
"Progressive" (communist) politicians like Obama seem determined to force us to swallow the man-made global warming scam. We need to defend ourselves from the UN and these politicians, who threaten our future and the future of our children. Based on a lie, they have already wasted billions and plan to increase taxes, limit development, and enslave us.
If not stopped, the global warming scam will enrich the scammers (Gore and Obama’s Wall Street friends), increase the power of the U.N. and communists like Obama, and multiply poverty and servitude for the rest of us.
David
March 16th, 2009 7:17amMel,
Even if you disbelieve climate change, you've still got to accept that we have a lack of resources, chronic deforestation, water shortages and that much of our activity pumps out pollutants that are damaging to us as well as the environment. It makes sense to address those, even if climate change is not man made. Just go to areas of Russia and China, made almost uninhabitable by industrial activity for proof of that.
Those of conservative disposition have always been friends of the countryside; why you want to sever that link is beyond me.
Meh
March 16th, 2009 9:30amIt just goes to show, you can't be to careful
JER0ME
March 16th, 2009 10:30amIndividuals CAN prevent Global Warming
I am not completely convinced CO2 has anything to do with Global Warming. That notwithstanding, I am certain that reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is both a good idea and necessary, for a large number of obvious reasons.
The good news is that we can all make a difference. It goes way beyond buying a few (polluting) low energy light bulbs, and will have a real impact if even half of those concerned about Global Warming follow the proposals. The beauty is that even if only half do this, it makes no difference what the rest do! Renewable energy will become cheaper than fossil fuels with enough investment in the technology, and everyone will move over naturally!
Firstly, buy renewable energy.
As far as I am aware, you have the choice to buy renewable electricity in all developed countries. If you cannot now, you should campaign for that inalienable right immediately. Currently our own household buys 25% of our electricity as renewable, costing us about US$33 extra per year. 100% would cost US$183)*.
Some argue that if millions of householders (and industries, I would hope) buy renewable energy, there will not be enough. If you do not buy it, there will NEVER be enough. If you do, the money will be used to INVEST in infrastructure for future renewable energy, so making the expense just as effective.
Merely by choosing to buy this, you are immediately and directly investing in the renewable energy industry, and sending a powerful and undeniable message to those who matter, the people who actually generate electricity, not environmentalists or politicians who may have different agenda.
Secondly, stop investing in 'Big Oil' and 'Big Coal'.
It comes as a shock to many ordinary citizens to be told that the huge greedy corporations actually make money for THEM, not for some faceless consortium. Sure, corporate flunkies may make millions of dollars, but WE, as investors, make billions, and even trillions. Their huge payouts and massive junkets are insignificant compared to the profits the companies make for their investors.
You may well think that you do not invest in these companies, but if you have a pension or investment fund, you almost certainly do. These funds will, quite obviously, be invested in the very companies that make the most profits and returns for their investors. All these corporations are doing is actually acting effectively YOUR instruction, ie to get the best possible return. If WE stop investing in them, they fail, and will be forced to change their practices to survive in a capitalist environment.
The answer is to choose ethical investments (there may be different names). Talk to your financial adviser and make the switch now. ONLY YOU control your investments. Make the choice and stop letting others do it for you.
You control the future, not governments or environmentalists.
The message is that YOU control the future of energy production with your wallets. The bad news is that it will cost, but nothing the environmentalists or governments will ever do about this issue will cost you less than this, and most of what they want to do will take control away from you and waste most of your expenditure in bureaucratic bungling and misguided foolishness, in my opinion. This simple two-step approach has all the potential to work and with no complex side effects that I can see immediately. It has a direct and immediate effect.
It is so rare that we are able to do something so straightforward in this complex world. If Global Warming concerns you, I urge you to put your money where your mouth is, and make an immediate difference TODAY, before the power is taken away from you.
* Based on a usage of 5,000 kWh of electricity.
Source: http://www.originenergy.com.au/1142/Green-energy-FAQs#extracost
http://www.carbonclimate.info/2009/03/individuals-can-prevent-global-warming.html
Highlander
March 16th, 2009 11:12amPot Head,
Thanks for that well thought out argument.
Pot Head
March 16th, 2009 11:55amHighlander You're welcome. Mel's post got the response it deserved.
It consisted of nothing but the views discredited scientist of which the climate is not even his field and the usual ravings of mad Monckton at a conference sponsored by a wingnut think tank. We're supposed to think this is credible. Give me a break!
Bruno
March 16th, 2009 12:12pmPot Head you are excellent at choosing usernames for your posts to match your opinion which is frankly, erm, exactly what opinion do you hold on this issue other than sniping little remarks. Come on potty head you must try harder.
John Plummer
March 16th, 2009 1:01pmRe: Shallow science and its victims... well said Melanie! The man made global warming "movement" is just like a fanatical religion. God believers or Gore believers... why do they think they are SO important in this universe?!
Hannah
March 16th, 2009 1:06pmPoor Pot Head is angry that Mel has posted twice on this in a week. I'm surprised he hasn't got more on his plate what with his rotten Guardian having Julie Myerson's husband telling its readers that skunk cannabis is lethal.
That's mutiny on the Guardigroan, surely? Get back and mend your sinking ship, Pot Head.
You've got 'global warming' and 'cannabis is safe' sinking faster than concrete. Let us enjoy the fun as the bad ship Rusbridger falls to bits!
Dixon
March 16th, 2009 1:06pmGood article, look at the responses:
Vision Aforethought:"Many of us are concerned about climate change (in particular pollution) ..."
Climate change, pollution, what a daft and muddle-headed confusion!
Pot Head
March 15th, 2009 10:49pm
"Is that pathetic tirade the best you can do?"
Whats THAT, not even a tirade, just a mindless empty jibe.
Then theres...JER0ME
March 16th, 2009 10:30am
"Individuals CAN prevent Global Warming"
The whole amply stated point of the piece is that thyere is no "global warming". Indeed,Climate Change fanatics stopped using the phrase years ago, for that very reason, as observed by Mark Steyn, about three years back already.
Next we have...well we'll see, more air-headed drivel from toe-rags who cannot even read the article before they spout off on it.
Dixon
March 16th, 2009 1:08pmPS, Pothead, people who smoke dope are all, well, dopes in my book. Every dope smoker I ever knew was an idiot.
boxermk
March 16th, 2009 2:06pmThe people at that conference were top scientists in the fields of climatology and meteorology, like Richard Lindzen of MIT, unlike say that fat redneck baffoon who is so popular in Europe - Al Gore. Instead of attacking with nothing to stand on other than your ignorance, why don't you actually check out the scientists who are proving the utter idiocy of catastrophic man-made global warming.
The environment is important, and what will save us is technology. What will destroy us is if we listen to people like Al Gore, have politicians regulate CO2 emissions, and destroy our economies once and for all. That will destroy the environment like nothing we have ever seen.
Global Warming is a mass hysteria that has no basis in science, and for that reason it will badly damage the environment.
N
March 16th, 2009 2:48pmMelanie, how can you question the gospel perpetrated and preached by our lord and savior Jesus H Al Gore? I mean, he DID invent the internet.
Well, if the academic and scientific community is as you say it is and it takes many deaths (your case of malaria and DDT)to reverse their decisions and stances, than we are screwed. What are we going to do when the earth doesn't burst into flames or drown us in melted glacier? That means we are going to be subject to this "global warming" crap forever!
Orwell Spinning
March 16th, 2009 6:05pm@Melanie Phillips
Given that scientists on both sides of the fence with regard to anthopogenically-forced climate change claim to use the scientific method, to be objective and so forth, how do you choose which side to believe?
It seems to me that the very arguments you use to back up your support for Richard Lindzen, for example, could equally well be used to support the work done by thousands of other scientists who would disagree with Lindzen.
So how can you be so sure that one side is right, the other wrong?
An American
March 16th, 2009 6:25pmIf it is allowed to go forward...global warming will go down as the biggest fraud ever perpetuated on the world's population.
Fortunately, most of the American public is not buying what these far-left nuts are trying to force down their throats.
Everything these liberal do-gooders are doing will have enormous negative effects on the poorer countries of the world in regard, particularly to food supply. And they will be dipping into advanced nation's citizen's pocketbooks to fill Gore and his cronies pockets...
It's the biggest of all scams of all time.
stu
March 16th, 2009 7:05pmThe scientific method requires reproducable results. All of the climate models used by the alarmists have failed to predict the modest decline in recorded global temperatures over the last 8+ years,a period of time when CO2 continued to become a larger component of our atmosphere. Some science, huh?
CanadianMike
March 16th, 2009 7:20pmVision Aforethought, you are conflating two completely different things. I have 2 young kids and I am concerned about pollution and its affect on their future. I have studied the global warming warming issue and have concluded it is a hoax. It is perpetrated mostly by those that stand to gain financially and/or politically from its agenda and by dupes who are unwilling or unable to critically examine the evidence. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace atmospheric gas that is beneficial to plants. Historical concentrations of CO2 have been both higher and lower in the past than they are now. So have temperatures. One of the negative consequences of this hoax is it leeches scarce resources from important environmental concerns such as real pollution and lack of clean water in many parts of the world. If you are truly concerned about pollution, please critically research "global warming" and demand that your local politicians stop wasting valuable resources on it.
Michael B
March 16th, 2009 7:24pmThrowing yet more light on the broader topic of shallow science, David Shaywitz, former endocrinologist and stem cell researcher at Harvard, writing in the WaPo, excerpt:
"A lot of science, it turns out, can't withstand serious scrutiny. Thoughtful analysis by John Ioannidis suggests that more than half of published scientific research findings can't be replicated by other researchers."
[...]
"Above all, university research needs to be recognized for what it is: an intensely competitive business, employing people who are desperately seeking recognition and frequently leveraging preliminary data that deserve to be taken with a large grain of salt."
[...]
"... it is critical that Obama -- who pledged in his inaugural address to "restore science to its rightful place" and who vowed just this week to "harness the power of science to achieve our goals" -- not reach for the other extreme and embrace politically attractive but preliminary reports because they happen to be wrapped in garlands of knowledge."
In other words, facile and too eager arrogations of "science," "reason," etc. to a variety of causes, from GW to stem cell research to virtually any and all policy issues that reflect some combination of technocratic, scientific, moral/ethical, political and other interests is rife with a diverse set of motivating factors, many of which run contrary to better scientific comprehensions.
Straydingo
March 16th, 2009 8:19pmNo one can dispute the fact that Al Gore and his disciples control the majority of the MSM coverage on the topic of AGW.
However, they have one major problem...and that is they cannot control the Environment and it will be the very god that they worship which will bring about their own demise.
Brian O'Connor
March 17th, 2009 4:30amOpen note to:
Pot Head
Vision Aforethought
JER0ME
Orwell Spinning
and anyone else who is an AGW advocate . . .
Are we in agreement that Mr. Gore was dead wrong when he asserted that AGW was "settled science?"
Brian
March 17th, 2009 5:04amFor those of you who haven't seen it, here's Bjorn Lomborg confronting Al Gore. http://tinyurl.com/cxmnuj
.
Lomborg wants to debate the issues, Gore wants no part of it.
.
Mr. Gore seems . . . uncomfortable . . . at the prospect of defending his position against Mr. Lomborg's points, and responds to Lomborg's suggestion with assertions — which he seems to hope we'll accept without challenge.
.
I can't imagine why.
Brian
March 17th, 2009 5:27amOrwell Spinning wrote:
<.>
If there is plausible evidence and and plausible arguments against an assertion, in this case against AGW, you must be a skeptic, irrespective of how many scientists there are making the assertion — because if there is any possibility that the skeptics are correct, you yourself must be open to the possibility that they are.
<.>
The alternative is to accept that it is impossible for those making the assertions to be wrong.
<.>
( <.> = skipped line between paragraphs for readability.)
Jenny
March 17th, 2009 9:25amJust thought I'd add to the general merriment at 'global warming's' comeuppance:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/some_oceans_are_more_equal_tha.html
Miranda Rose Smith
March 17th, 2009 10:38amPlease update me on the biofuel scam.
Ellen Stuttle
March 17th, 2009 1:40pm[2nd try at posting this.]
-
Vision Aforethought:
* "Many of us are concerned about climate change (in particular pollution) simply because we have observed it with our own eyes/senses, and wish to do something about it."
-
If you wish to do something about something real, it is maximally important that you get clear in your mind that "climate change" is not pollution; pollution is not "climate
change." The issues of "climate change" and pollution are two different issues, however much Al Gore and others, plus the media -- and even the US EPA -- keep confusing them.
-
Catastrophic "climate change" is said to be occuring because of human-produced CO2 (carbon dioxide). CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas which you and every other human exhale every
time you exhale. It is necessary to the plant life of this earth; plants require CO2 for photosynthesis.
-
If pollution is your concern, being concerned about CO2 will get you nowhere, since CO2 is not a pollutant.
Ellen Stuttle
March 17th, 2009 1:49pmhttp://tinyurl.com/chw2ud
-
Update: 59 Additional Scientists Join Senate Report...More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
March 16, 2009
-
PS to Orwell Spinning: I'll add to Brian's answer above that there aren't "thousands" of scientists who believe the AGW claims; you're only told by the media that there are.
Dixon
March 17th, 2009 2:18pmIf there are so many thousands of scientists of one mind, can anyone name me ten of them?
Meanwhile, there are MILLLIONS of scientists accross the globe, many of them working in fields with a direct bearing upon the AGW issue, but whose views on the matter do not figure in this debate, ever.
David B
March 17th, 2009 5:39pmThese quotes seem oblivious to the irony of their own position - how can one decry Climate Change science for lack of evidence and not enough time to know for sure - and then use short-term trends of 7 years, 4 years or less to try to contradict it?
Long-term trends can only be observed through 10-year averages.
Dixon,
Anthropogenic Global Warming is the observed phenomenon - global temperatures have shown a rising trend, with CO2 emissions, over the Twentieth Century - Climate Change is the predicted (and starting to be observed) consequence.
Different regions, with different climates, will see different effects (with some even geting cooler locally).
Joe NS
March 17th, 2009 9:30pmEvery single day the sun delivers 50 quadrillion joules of energy to the earth's atmosphere (i.e., 1 watt per square meter of the atmosphere per second). The total daily output of man-made power is not one-billionth of that amount. Our contribution to atmospheric heating is therefore 1 ten-millionth of one percent!!!!
But in the global warming whodunit, we're the culprit.
Ben
March 17th, 2009 11:19pmThe population explosion is the primary cause of all environmental problems. Whether it is overexploitation of finite resources or the upsetting of natural equilibria, the only long-term solution is to reduce population to what it was a century ago and keep it there, perhaps even lower.
Brian O'Connor
March 18th, 2009 1:27amDavid B —
Are we in agreement that Mr. Gore was dead wrong when he asserted that AGW is settled science?
David B
March 18th, 2009 11:28amBrian O'Connor,
The scientific principles behind the AGW hypothesis are certainly settled. Rising CO2 levels cause global warming.
The evidence that the twentieth century has seen a global warming trend is settled.
The evidence that this rising trend has been caused by human activity is so convincing that the IPCC has assigned the AGW explanation a probability of 90% or "almost certain".
What is more, the alternative explanations and the evidence for them are much weaker than for AGW.
So no, I couldn't agree he is "dead wrong".
It may be that some details of how fast it is happening, what the effects are and what will happen next are not yet settled, but in the course of settling them the prognosis is getting worse not better.
Brian O'Connor
March 18th, 2009 2:48pmDavid B wrote:
.
.
As does water vapour. Sigh . . . if only those pesky Russian antarctic ice cores didn't show that the rise in CO2 accompanying GW over 500,000 years didn't lag behind temperature rise by several hundred years . . .
.
.
The temperature waxed and waned during the ice ages, to, long before humans could have influenced it. There was the little ice age during this millennium, and the medieval warm period, also before humans went industrial. The temperature has risen on Mars, possibly on Jupiter and Neptune, Triton and Enceladus, to name a few non-earth venues. It's hard to believe our SUVs are responsible for that.
.
It's also true that much of the global warming of the 20th C came before the world had become very industrialized at all (like prior to the '40s). Yet the warmest decade was the 1930s.
.
.
I'll not be snarky about the IPCC, though I'm tempted. In real science, the null hypothesis is rejected unless it is at least 95%. I'm unimpressed with the IPCCs guess — and it really is a pure guess — of "90%". (How did they arrive at 90%? )
.
In other words, the IPCC's 90% shows itself to be skeptical, though they don't admit it. They're hedging their bets, dude.
.
.
That's an argument from ignorance, a fallacy — because we don't know what "b" might be, we know its competitor "a" is right.
.
.
Well, if we don't know all that, why are we panicked? Why couldn't there be substantial benefits to AGW, if it's happening (like longer growing seasons, less fuel used for heating, etc.)?
David B
March 18th, 2009 5:50pmWhat those ice cores show is that there can be a feedback mechanism - we increase C02, the world gets warmer, releasing even more CO2 - this is bad news as it accelerates the warming.
The warming after the ice ages was slower than now, the human population much lower and its activities less complex - rapid change now will have dramatic consequences.
It's not arguing from ignorance - science works by comparing falsifiable hypotheses to the evidence. AGW fits the evidence better than other explanations. 'Evidence', such as it is, for warming on other planets is far far weaker than the various forms of evidence supporting AGW and is not consistent with alternative theories.
That's as settled as natural science gets, and even if details are being researched and argued over, the prognosis is getting worse as more evidence is collected, not better.
Where is the evidence for limited benefits outweighing the substantial costs due to desertification, crop disruption, migrations, social instability, rising sea levels, extreme weather events and runaway climate change caused by shrinking ice caps and released CO2 and methane?
Brian O'Connor
March 18th, 2009 10:42pmDavid B wrote:
And yet somehow, in spite of the irreversible positive feedback loop your argument requires, global warming has repeatedly cycled from cold to warm and back again, before humans could ever have contributed to it! Aliens really do cause global warming! http://tinyurl.com/33wbk2 And . . . about the acceleration bit . . . you aren't referring to the Hockey Stick, are you? If so, see the final URL I've included here. If you're not, you need to keep in mind that it's harder to distinguish small climate shifts from 10s of thousands ago than it is in the past century or so. So you can't really talk about accelerating unless you can look at a comparable period of ancient time with a comparably acute lens as you can to more modern events.
Ice ages? You mean those periods of time when glaciers extended over much of the Northern Hemisphere? Those periods which were punctuated with warm climates that cycled into glaciers? Before humans? Tell me it isn't so!
Correlation and causation are two different beasts . . . By the way . . . you have yet to account for the little ice age and the Medieval warm period of this millennium. Nor were the computer models able to predict the fact that "global warming" has not increased in the past decade, and for the past 7 years has been "warming in reverse."
Oh dear . . . you seem to be conflating observations of what is probably happening elsewhere in our galaxy with putative mechanisms that cause AGW (were it to exist). That's sloppy.
Actually, you're dead wrong on that. But if you'd like to lecture me on what science is and how it should be conducted, I'd be up for it . . .
That is a disputed point. And as one well learned in the art of science, I'm sure you're aware that scientific truth is not subject to the democratic process . . . or is it? What does it tell you that the entire scenario painted by the AGW alarmists is entirely catastrophic? Never do they talk about increased growing seasons, increased arable land in higher and lower latitudes, or decreased dependence on resources for heating. It's almost as if our AGW disciples are more interested in persuading than enlightening, isn't it?
Well, where's the evidence that warming will continue as the computer models say it will, and if it does, how can anyone claim that it will be either catastrophic or entirely beneficial? You don't know. You can't know. After all, the computer models failed to predict the climate stasis (some would say temperature drop) of the past decade.
Look — the cold hard fact is that the warmest decade of the 20th C was the 1930s, with something like 4 of the 10 hottest years occurring then. http://tinyurl.com/dzrtjg What's particularly disturbing about this is that the NASA people . . . the AGW champions . . . didn't announce they'd changed their data sets to reflect that . . . it was left to Steve McIntyre to discover the change extemporaneously and publicize it http://tinyurl.com/yrngq9 (You might remember McIntyre from somewhere else. It was he and Ross McKitrick who destroyed Michael Mann's famous "hockey stick" climate graph . . .) http://tinyurl.com/cph5bk I would also remind you that the climate models you're so confident in weren't able to retrospectively detect the 30s heat wave.
David B
March 19th, 2009 8:37amBrian,
even looking at the data set you linked to, it's quite clear that the average temperature over the last 10 years is higher than the 30s. In a chaotic system temperatures will vary with peaks and troughs around an average - it is this average that is showing a rising trend.
Fitting a scientific theory to evidence is not mere 'correlation', the theory has to explain the causation with evidence to back up the explanatory mechanism.
The longer-term warming/cooling cycles of the past may well have been triggered/caused by variations up and down in solar activity. But there is no evidence for increased solar radiation adequate to explain today's rapid warming. CO2 is known to cause warming so the feedback mechanism can now kick in due to human activity triggering it.
What kind of evidence would convince you that "that warming will continue as the computer models say it will"? We can't get data from the future so this seems unfalsifiable. The evidence we have shows a warming trend and backs up the explanatory theory that says this will continue - that's science.
Finally, if you're going to argue science and then don't know the difference between a galaxy and a solar system, well...
Matt in N.Y.
March 19th, 2009 9:19pmWhy are you blaming the biofuel debacle on "The Greens"? Several major environmental organizations--including Greenpeace and the Sierra Club--were arguing against corn based ethanol mandates in the U.S. as early as 2006. They're still in a loose alliance with food producers here, arguing that ethanol production is a horribly inefficient route to energy independence for the U.S. Sort of an inappropriate straw man you chose to cap off this ill-informed diatribe.
Will
March 19th, 2009 10:52pmOsamabamarama? I see what you did there, how witty, you are truly the heir apparent to Dorothy Parker.
And Obama's 'stated ambition of shutting down nine-tenths of the economies of the West and flinging us back to the Stone Age without even the right to light fires in our caves', where was this stated except in your fevered imagination?
km
March 19th, 2009 11:16pmI can't wait till next week, when Ms. Phillips offers her expert opinion on quantum mechanics.
SplendidOne
March 19th, 2009 11:19pmTotal knee jerk essay revealing a massive black hole where scientific knowledge could be.
Frank in Mn
March 20th, 2009 12:40amBoth links in this hilariously misleading article are to the Heartland Institute, which doesn't believe that smoking cigarettes causes cancer, either.
Gus
March 20th, 2009 12:52amWow, I see lots of climate experts hang out here. Willie Soon is a member of a conservative think tank called the George C. Marshall Institute funded in part by the Exxon Education Foundation. His word is suspect at best. I don't know if fossil fuel consumption is causing global warming. Neither do you. Stick to something you know about if there is such a topic.
Brian O'Connor
March 20th, 2009 6:02pmDavid B
First, point taken about solar system and galaxy — I'd meant to write "solar system" and incorrectly wrote "galaxy" (though the temperature rise, by occurring in the solar system, also occurred in the galaxy).
.
But my point stands. There appears to be good evidence of global warming on bodies in the solar system other than Mother Earth. They cannot be accounted for by invoking man-made CO2 emissions. (What intrigues me about them is this: the solar system is about 4.5 billion years old. I don't know how to calculate a probability when all the variables are unknown, but it seems to me to be pretty long odds that such warming just happened to occur to "us" and "them" at exactly the same nano-second in the solar system's history, unless there is some common mechanism other than human produced CO2 emissions.)
.
The temperature trend from about 1900 through about 1945 rises at almost exactly the same rate as from about 1965 to about 2000. Given that industrialization and with it Man-created CO2 emissions hugely increased only after 1940, it's clear that the rate that temperature increased during the earlier half of the century cannot be attributed to human activity. Something else caused it. (Parenthetically, the notion that the 1990s is the warmest decade of the 20th C is disputed — see Steve McIntyre's presentation of the issues: http://tinyurl.com/dlflwk .)
.
Earlier, you proposed a purely positive feedback loop. If it were as one-sided as you suggested, the temperature trend over the past decade couldn't have leveled off, or even decreased, as it seems to have over the past 6 - 8 years.
.
I'm concerned also at the disturbing number of errors which creep into the determinations of GW trends — all of which point towards greater catastrophe. There was (and is) the hockey stick; there were the incorrect temperature readings of the 1930s vs 1990s, and then, worse, the surreptitious correction of those errors, leaving false impressions to stand; there was the recent incorrect claim that in Russia in 2006, October was as hot as September; there are the incorrect claims of increased numbers and strengths of catastrophic storms; there's the reluctance to release algorithms and data, so that others can attempt to reproduce results; the demonization of those who raise questions; the consistently catastrophic predictions of GW champions, who consistently ignore cost benefit analysis of the sort outlined by Lomborg http://tinyurl.com/c7novp . . . the one-sidedness by GW advocates just goes on and on.
Brian O'Connor
March 20th, 2009 6:06pmFrank in MN wrote:
"Both links in this hilariously misleading article are to the Heartland Institute, which doesn't believe that smoking cigarettes causes cancer, either."
.
Poisoning the Well logical fallacy. http://tinyurl.com/jve2t
Frank in MN
March 21st, 2009 3:52amBrian O'Connor wrote:
Poisoning the Well logical fallacy. http://tinyurl.com/jve2t
I am familiar with the fallacy. But when judgment is so pathetic in one instance, surely that judgment deserves special scrutiny in other instances, in spite of what Rush tells you to think.
I wonder if Ms Phillips or any of the other disbelievers can say, without resorting to Google, what property makes a gas such as CO2 a greenhouse gas? If you are incapable of answering such a basic question, you have no qualifications whatsoever to evangelize on the relationship between CO2 and global warming.
It is astonishing that so many seem to feel that political fanaticism entitles them to not only disagree with, but to despise those whose opinion doesn't perfectly align with their fanaticism.
To your "point" about warming on other planets in the solar system (aka "the galaxy", quite a typo, that): First of all, what makes you think warming is really happening across the solar system? Surely those scientists who aren't competent concerning Earth can't be reliable for Neptune temperature. Secondly, since you're into logical fallacies, why must global climate change on Earth be due to the same cause as on Uranus? If you and a Pakistani both have a fever, do you have the same illness?
Brian O'Connor
March 21st, 2009 5:18pmFrank in MN wrote:
Brian O'Connor wrote:
Poisoning the Well logical fallacy. http://tinyurl.com/jve2t
.
I am familiar with the fallacy. But when judgment is so pathetic in one instance, surely that judgment deserves special scrutiny in other instances, (...)
Translation: "I know what the fallacy is, but I don't care. I'm more interested in winning over opinion than I am in a productive exploration of the issues, and I'm more likely to win by attacking the qualifications or character of the messenger than arguing the merits of my position . . .."
.
. . . in spite of what Rush tells you to think.
.
Translation: ". . . and I'll prove it to you by poisoning the well again . . .."
.
I wonder if Ms Phillips or any of the other disbelievers can say, without resorting to Google, what property makes a gas such as CO2 a greenhouse gas? If you are incapable of answering such a basic question, you have no qualifications whatsoever to evangelize on the relationship between CO2 and global warming.
.
Translation: ". . . and I'll poison the well still again! You see, it's all about me, and only those I deem worthy, according to criteria I set, are capable of forming a reasoned position. And my rule applies to anything and everything . . . the proper way to deal with the Mideast, what to do about the economy, abortion, etc."
.
It is astonishing that so many seem to feel that political fanaticism entitles them to not only disagree with, but to despise those whose opinion doesn't perfectly align with their fanaticism.
.
Translation: "And I'll poison the well yet again! It's all about me, and anyone who disagrees with me is by definition a political fanatic. There is no such thing as reasoned opposition offered in good faith with the view of better understanding the issues."
.
To your "point" about warming on other planets in the solar system (aka "the galaxy", quite a typo, that):
.
Translation: "And I'll continue to poison the well! Because Brian goofed when he wrote "galaxy" instead of "solar system," nothing he says can be trusted!"
.
First of all, what makes you think warming is really happening across the solar system?
Ahhhh . . . the observations of astronomers, as contained in published reports? But that's just a guess. Am I correct?
.
Surely those scientists who aren't competent concerning Earth can't be reliable for Neptune temperature.(ic)
.
Which scientists are those? (Fallacy of Composition. You've lumped all climate scientists together (believers and disbelievers in AGW), and all climate scientists with all astronomers. http://tinyurl.com/2ha2uu
.
Secondly, since you're into logical fallacies, why must global climate change on Earth be due to the same cause as on Uranus?
.
You've created a strawman (it's another logical fallacy: http://tinyurl.com/cskmkw). I didn't say GW on Earth *MUST* be due to the same forces at work on other bodies of the solar system. I merely stated that it seemed to me that it would be a coincidence of diminishing probabilities (IMO approaching zero) were several bodies of our solar system to be warming at exactly the same nanosecond of the solar system's 4.5 billion year history but for different reasons. (Note: a nanosecond is 1 billionth of a second.) Feel free to disagree, but if such warming is occurring, it wouold be a pretty good external control, one which virtually "rules out" human caused GW.
.
If you and a Pakistani both have a fever, do you have the same illness?
.
If the Pakistani and I had been flying together in a plane and exposed to the same sneezing, flu-ridden passengers, the odds would be pretty good that we did.
.
FWIW — at least you've convinced me you understand fallacies. I'll give you that.