Stop Man Made Global Warming ….
Jun 24th, 2008 by FrankKnotts
Moderator’s note: I edited this post to add a story-jump. This cuts down on the length of the main page, another item of feedback on blogging I have received recently. The content was not altered. Apologies to Frank for stepping in. -Randy, aka: RSmitty
mania!!!!
It has been sometime since I have posted here or anywhere , on any topic. This is because I find myself making the same arguments to the same people about the same issues, and getting the same answers back.
Well for someone like myself this has not been easy, trust me . I am a person who takes in a large amount of information , and then forms my own opinion on many diverse topics and issues. I am often criticized here for not listing each and every article and study on which I base my point of view. But I believe we are all born with an ability to understand even the most complex issues if we apply two things , commonsense and life experience. Granted the second is different for all of us based on our age and the life we have lead, and the first is sometimes supplanted by self interest.
But now I will call on all who read this article to apply these two things to the best of their ability to address the issue of man made global warming or (MMGW).
MMGW is the largest threat to our nation’s economy and security , but also to that of the world at large. Not because it does or does not exist , but because it has become the latest cause celeb’ . It is being worn as if it were the latest fashion from France. Everywhere you turn you hear the phrase “ MMGW” or “living green” and “a green company ” or some such thing. It has become cool to be green and un-cool to speak against the “idea ” of MMGW.
We hear about a scientific consensus that tells us that global warming is a fact and that man is the main cause. Well first of all there have been many times that a scientific consensus has later been proven wrong. Just a couple , the earth was once believed to be flat by the greatest minds of their day, false. Another, it was once held that Africans were inferior to Europeans, false. There are many examples of the science of one time being proven incorrect in the future.
The problem of just latching onto what is the latest scientific fad is that it almost always has some unforeseeable consequences. With the belief that the world was flat, it restricted trade and exploration for hundreds maybe thousands of years. As for the belief that Africans were inferior to Europeans , well we all know this lead to the enslavement of countless numbers of fellow human beings , maybe costing us untold advances in science and medicine by people who were held back by a scientific consensus.
The two examples I gave above are both examples of people in general buying into a belief system started by a person or a group with some special interest or by ignorance, but in both cases, fear is what drives the rest of the majority to climb on board. Fear that if they venture too far they will fall off the edge of the world or fear that an inferior race will rise up and destroy their culture and so must be managed for the benefit of all.
If we look at what is being said today about MMGW we can see similarities in the fear mongering that is going on in the name of scientific consensus. We are told that there is no doubt that the planet is warming , and that it is being caused by man’s use of fossil fuels. We are told that if we do not stop the use of fossil fuels the planet is doomed to warm to the point of no return in as little as twenty years. Let me just say at this point that I have lived long enough to remember being told that the planet only had twenty years to reach the point of no return , thirty years ago. We are told we must make sacrifices to achieve the goal of reducing our carbon foot print.
Now let us look at some of these sacrifices that we are being ask to make in the name of stopping MMGW.
First we are being asked to subsidise the development of alternative fuels through higher gasoline prices due to government regulations that mandate that a certain amount of the oil companies’ profits go towards creating their own competition. We are paying higher gas prices due to gov. regulations mandating that we use special blends , including ethanol, which I will address later. We are paying higher prices for all things due to regulations on every type of manufacturer to reduce CO2 out puts.
We are being told we must drive smaller cars , use certain types of light bulbs, keep our thermostats at a certain temperature. What we are really being told is how to live . We are being told that we are unable to make choices for ourselves, so the government will make them for us through mandates and regulations. Is this your idea of freedom ? Well it’s not mine.
Now let me list some of the consequences of the path we are on. The government seems to think that if it forces the oil companies to create alternative fuels this somehow makes the alternative fuels a good idea, not so, you can’t force into existence a good idea. Just look at ethanol. Ethanol was touted as a way too cleaner more efficient use of fossil fuels. This has been proven to be false. It burns dirtier, and you get fewer mpg., it causes damage to vehicles which puts a burden on people who can least afford to replace or repair their cars. It drives the price of a gallon higher. But the worst aspect of ethanol is the fact that it is causing a world wide shortage of corn. Hundreds of thousands of tons of corn are being diverted from use for food to be used for fuel. Land that would grow wheat or other food staples are being used for corn, this is also a bad farming practice and could cause soil deterioration.
Let us look at another path being taken by those who wish to save us from MMGW. We are seeing our governments both federal and local mandate and regulate industries to the point of no return. Either through the cost of doing business or through the stealing of their profits through taxes on what some government wank decides is a wind fall profit.
This sort of over regulation and taxation will lead to more and more industries like car companies to leave the USA for over seas, or Mexico. Those who stay will pass on the cost of doing business in this environment to the consumers. This of course will hit the poorest the hardest. This also leads to ever larger trade imbalance with countries such as China and India.
I will now ask all of you to take a moment to sit down and really think about the logic of the global warming issue. Think about whether you are basing you opinion on what you believe or on what you think you are expected to believe. Do not consider it from a Democrat or Republican point of view . Think of it by weighing the benefits and the cost of what is being proposed. Also consider who you are getting your information from. Consider the fact that scientist and professors need grants and funding to continue their work, and politicians will latch on to whatever they believe will keep them in power. Ask yourselves what is truly in the best interest of this country and the world? Less CO2 or less food and resources?
Frank: The examples you give were consensus, but not scientific. Indeed, I seriously doubt whether you have read any scientific literature from sources you disagree with, as you never present any arguments that don’t come pre-chewed from conservative sources. In fact, if you had, you would notice that the scientific consensus is that global warming is definitely occurring, and that it PROBABLY is manmade.
Beyond that, you are blaming MMGW for a bunch of trends that are taking place before any steps have been taken.
The problem of just latching onto what is the latest scientific fad is that it almost always has some unforeseeable consequences.
Ahh, but Frank, so does completely brushing them off as folly. What to do, what to do? I think you may have just unintentionally hit the root of most of our issues today. The majority of those in positions to make policy and decisions in all things simply don’t think things through to the long-term consequence, good or bad. It just seems as if all of our policies and solutions are instant remedies and the long-term will handle itself…until someone comes up with a short-term fix at that time.
This is why I think the BWW deal was so difficult and caused so much consternation. It is a long-term solution for short-term world.
Just look at ethanol. Ethanol was touted as a way too cleaner more efficient use of fossil fuels.
This point of yours actually makes me laugh a little. In your overall point of showing that people are too quick to latch on to pro-environmental solutions based on dire hysteria, you overlooked something big. Do you know what a lot of these environmentalists said about Ethanol? They are the ones who were screaming that it was a red-herring solution. Yes, it was cleaner; however, far more inefficient to use, far more costly to produce, and could lead to a chain-reaction food shortage and food-price-inflation. THEY were the ones to think it out. I believe that may be contrary to your overall point here.
I do agree, however, that serious thought must be put into future development of energy sources. I do believe that there is a combination of climate-cycle warming AND man-made warming. We were already on a cycle of warmth, given past recorded and researched data, but the differential is outpacing the mathematically calculated “par-value” of increase. That’s why I think it’s a combination. Let’s also look at pollution. No matter how you shake a stick at it, it’s still a problem that we must manage better.
I could go on and on, but I can’t (I should be working!!!!!!!). In the meantime, I am about to add a “jump” to your post, so it isn’t so long on the main blog page.
Cheers!
Randy
Frank, you have to call it “anthropogenic” global warming if you want to sound wonky. Oh, and on the subject of unintended consequences; by now everyone’s heard how toxic those fluorescent light bulbs are, but hardly anyone has heard how nasty the by-products are from manufacturing the batteries for all these lovely electric/hybrid cars. If you thought PCBs were bad…
Rasmussen Reports 10 DEC 08
But only 32% of all voters believe it’s caused primarily by Human Activity; 47% attribute the warming to Long-Term Planetary Trends.
Frank isn’t alone, right or wrong.
I don’t disagree with you on that, DS. It’s an issue that is extremely easy to dig one’s heals in on one side or the other. Digging for whose THEORY is accurate and finding the supporting evidence is the hardest and most elusive part.
I think Al said it best: “Frank: The examples you give were consensus, but not scientific.”
I would go one step further for your benefit, Frank, which is to distinguish between belief based on faith (a “consensus” of sorts) and belief based on a tested hypothesis. An example of the former is “the world is flat”. Another example is any religion. An example of the latter is MMGW.
When an hypothesis has been significantly tested by a number of qualified scientists, it becomes a theory. Like testable hypotheses, theories are subject to further testing, refinement, even refutation.
Consider Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, accepted for at least 60 years. Now we know that it applies to the macroscopic world, but not the sub-atomic world. Now we have string theory as a refinement and adder.
An additional distinction between hypothesis and theory, is that one can use a theory to predict behavior with more certainty than when using an hypothesis.
MMGM has reached the status of being a theory.
To learn more about the MMGM theory, and to understand the detailed answers to those skeptics like yourself, Frank, who question the validity of this theory, I suggest the following source of information already posted elsewhere on this blog:
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
You can use this link to trace down any objection to MMGM theory to find the scientific rebuttal, in great detail if your are willing to really dig in with an honest, inquiring mind.
You might also find it interesting, Frank, to read the recent statement by Dr. James Hanson, the originator of MMGM some 20 years ago. His current addition to the MMGM theory is that we are very near the tipping point beyond which we would be at a point of no return.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/twenty-years-later-tippin_b_108766.html
This is extremely serious stuff!!!
Make that James Hansen!
Before I answer some of the points made let me say that I will not get into a long drawn out back and forth of “my scientist against your scientist”. And now quickly to Al, you say that my two examples where not supported by scientific consensus of the time . On the world being flat , can we not agree that most of the people of a certain time believed that the world was flat , including what would have been concidered to be their greatest thinkers. It then comes down to what is your definition of a scientist, but you can not judge what would have past for a scientist of a time gone by, based on today’s standards.
As to the belief that Africans were inferior to Europeans , there were scientist-physicians of the Antebellum period who created a huge body of literature to support the notion. Just two were, Dr. Josiah Nott of Mobile and Dr. Samuel Cartwright of New Orleans. And now when you look them up and find out that they were biased you will only be making my point. On the political side of the issue you had Sen. John C. Calhoun , who claimed that slavery was ” a positive good “. My point being that people need to look past the emotion of the issue and ask them selves , does this make sence.
To RSmitty, first sorry for the length of the article , I will try to figure out how to do the jump myself in the future on such long post, I am not the most skilled user of computers. Now to touch on a couple of your points. First you mention that the enviromentals were against ethanol, and yet we have it any way. In my post I lay blame not only on the enviromentals but also on the politicians. Ethanol is the fault of politicians caving to the corn lobbyist, which makes my point about politicians doing what ever will keep them in power. You also said that ethanol was cleaner, well not really, it creates more low level ozone just for starters and due to it’s inefficient burning more CO2. And let us not forget the huge amounts of water needed to produce it, will our next crisis be a water shortage?
The point I am trying to make is that we are as a country, and now it is filtering down to local governments, making real decisions that have real consequences based on ideas and theories, even Al used the word “probably” when talking about MMGW. And I challenge anyone to lead me too a study that does not use words such as , maybe , could , might , possibly, or any other qualifiers. Also many of these studies are base on computer models which don’t even come close to including the millions of variables that maybe adding to the so called global warming issue. It will be too late after we have ruined our economy which puts our security at risk to turn back when we discover that this so called MMGW was nothing more then the latest sky is falling dooms day proclamation.
And since someone else brought it up , the BWW deal here in Delaware is a perfect example of what I am talking about. The state government created a price spike through price caps, and then to cover that up they mandated alternative fuels to try and lay the blame on DP&L. And now that DP&L has been forced into a contract that they did not desire we can now say that DP&L has been taken over by the state not merely regulated, because now the state is making decisions about how DP&L conducts their day to day operations. And for myself to be right about what I believe this will lead too , it means that consumers will pay more for less and will end up paying to correct this mess ten years down the road, this is not what I want , it is what I fear. This was a clear case of what I pointed out in my original post, you cannot mandate a good idea, if it was a good idea why didn’t BWW come to DP&L and sell it ?
you cannot mandate a good idea
Of course you can. Those mandates are called “laws.” Hopefully the laws are good ideas instead of bad ones.
if it was a good idea why didn’t BWW come to DP&L and sell it ?
Because DP&L thinks only of short-term profits. When the savings and environmental benefits of BWW come to pass, most DP&L stockholders and execs will be retired, dead, or nearly so.
noman, even a Bolshevik such as your self must admit that there are also a lot of laws that are bad ideas. But excuse me for using the word idea, I should have known a word splitter such as yourself would come along. Let me say you can not force or mandate an invention , you can call on people to work towards solving problems , but you can not decide first what the solution should be.
As to DP&L being only interested in short term profits, well God forbid that they should look out for stock holders , not to mention all of the 401Ks that are invested in their success . But again if BWW is able to offer DP&L a stable price into the future for the energy that DP&L buys from BWW then how would that not add to their profits?And how is it the governments place to decide where DP&L buys there energy? Too many people interested in promoting renewable energy are not looking behind the seens. This is a first step into nationalizing private industry.
Frank said: “Also many of these studies are base on computer models which don’t even come close to including the millions of variables that maybe adding to the so called global warming issue.”
This is correct, Frank. We will never have it all. We have to make policy decisions based on what we know today. Please read this:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/19/51921/827
Next, Frank, please read here what Dr. James Hansen said several days ago: “Today I testified to Congress about global warming, 20 years after my June 23, 1988 testimony, which alerted the public that global warming was underway. There are striking similarities between then and now, but one big difference.
Again a wide gap has developed between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known by policymakers and the public. Now, as then, frank assessment of scientific data yields conclusions that are shocking to the body politic. Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99 percent.
The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb. The next president and Congress must define a course next year in which the United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for the present dangerous situation.”
The same models that Hansen used in 1988 predicted the MMGW behavior in the succeeding two decades. So his 99 percent certainty statement still stands as scientifically valid.
Sure, you can find skeptics among scientists. There are always skeptics about almost all scientific conclusions. There is no absolute truth in science, just as there is none in religion. However, in science, we go with the consensus, and must make policy decisions based on this scientific consensus.
Policy makers, therefore, must find solutions to MMGW with a minimum impact on the economy — that’s our challenge!
People like you, Frank, would prefer to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence and do nothing, thus taking an extraordinary gamble impacting the future of us all, including your daughter and her children. That’s plain wrongheaded stupid, in my view!!!
I have a question for Perry Hood. You claim that the the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been tested to where it is now a scientific theory. But to for it to be a scientific theory, at least according to the Scientific Method, the tests must be falsifiable. I have searched long and hard to find evidence of falsifiable tests that confirmed AGW, but have had no luck in finding anything to support this. Do you have any links or references that show evidence of falsifiable tests that support AGW. If so, in what would have been the results that would have shown AGW to be false?
Without evidence of AGW passing rigerous falsifiable tests, the reported consensus of world scientists doesn’t amount to much.
“Falsifiable tests”? Good question!
When the earth was thought to be flat, one falsifiable test was sailing to the edge, but discovering that the result was circumnavigation of a circle/ellipse. That test did not take long.
In the case of the theory that anthropogenic global warming is caused by increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases due to man’s behavior, the falsiable test would be to decrease atmospheric greenhouse gas emission, then measure global temperature. This test will take at least five decades to get the results.
This is exactly the test that scientists say we must start immediately, before the tipping point is reached!
Perry,
if I understand you correctly, then you know of no scientific proof that AGW is more than a unproven scientific hypothesis. This being the case why should we worry about some abstract “tipping point” based upon faith? There have been no falsifiable test that the “tipping point” even exists. So in essence we have just as much no more scientific evidence to support AGW and a “tipping point” than we do to support witches, big foot, God, of jackalopes, and the average housing price in the US will have a huge upward spike on Nov. 11th of this year.
It seems to me that a valid falsifiable test of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (AGG) being the major driver in global climate change would be to increase the AGG significantly and measure whether this is always a corresponding significant increase in global temperatures. Man has increased AGG significantly over the past century, however there has not always been a corresponding temperature increase, and infact there have been temperature decreases. This appears to be ample evidence that other factors than AGG can and have had a far greater impact on global climate than AGG.
Irbinfrisco, the data is irrefutable, we have global warming, and we have increased atmospheric greenhouse gases, and we have man’s behavior accounting for the increase. You might want to check out the recent IPCC Report, Summary for Policy Makers, the first six pages:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
The tipping point prediction is not based on faith, it is based on computer modeling by Dr. James Hansen and others, which has predicted global temperature increases for a century, by Hansen since 1988.
You are correct that GW is a complicated phenomenon involving many factors that produce some noise in the trend line graphs. However, the trend lines over time are quite convincing to an overwhelming number of scientists from all over the globe. On the contrary, I don’t agree that the evidence suggest that there are factors more significant over short time intervals (say centuries) than the anthropogenic factors. I am not talking about long term global temperature effects with periods of thousands of years, like those that have produced the ice ages followed by global warming. I am also not talking about catastrophic events like volcanoes or comet strikes.
I suspect that most scientists would consider it a gamble not worth taking to purposely increase atmospheric greenhouse gases, for fear of hastening the tipping point as well as increasing global warming.
As I said before, any falsifiable test one can think of would take decades to learn the results. If our understanding of the theory is sufficient now, we cannot wait for remediation, therefore, your falsifiable tests are out of the question. Of course, these falsifiable tests are routine by those doing the computer modeling, but I don’t think that is what you have in mind, is it?
Perry, exactly what data are you suggesting that is irrefutable? If you’re referring to Global Temperature, this data is highly refutable. 1st of all we have millions of square miles of surface area on the earth which we measure for the most part using just a few thousand data points taken twice each 24 hours. Many of these data points are extremely succeptable to human error and there are inadequate controls in place to catch most potential human error. Our measurements of atmospheric levels other than the surface and deep sea temperatures is certainly sparse at best, leaving even more room for error. Then we have land use changes which could substantially affect the temperatures over time. And Global temperature is far from a simple average of all temperatures. It’s a highly complex, and in many cases highly secret, formula that involves extensive manipulation of original data. Both past and present data are continually being manipulated based upon new hypothesis by the scientists controling the data. If the data is irrefutable, then why are scientists, such as James Hansen, still chaning it?
Likewise the data on greeen house and AGG levels in the atmosphere is far from irrefutable. AGG levels are obtained by estimates, not direct empirical measurements. Therefore they are subject to change as newer and better estimating techniques become available or flaws in past estimating technigues are exposed. We also have no good estimate on the major component of green house gases, water. And it’s a total guess as to how much water is anthropogenic and how much is natural. Even anthropogenic C02 and methane are only relatively loose estimates.
There is no scientific proof that man is responsible for any Global Warming much less how much. In order to obtain scientific proof, we need falsifiable tests of the prediction that man causes Global Warming. Since the scientific evidence showing that Global Warming has occurred throughout the world’s history including before man was present is overwhelming, the burden of proof to show that man is driving a significant percentage of climate change is quite high. Climate has always changed, and most of the time it was not possible for man to have influenced it. This is extensively supported by numerous falsifiable tests.
Either something is taken on faith or upon scientific proof. There is no scientific proof of a tipping point in AGW or even for AGW, so the belief in a AGW tipping point must be based upon faith until scientific proof can be supplied via falsifiable tests of hypotheses based upon empirical observations.
Computer models that have been used to “prove” AGW are not falsifiable. They fail to meet the preditive component of scientific falsifiable tests. Computers only do what you tell them to do. All computer applications are based upon an algorithm. But these algorithm’s have been unable to accurately predict future climate changes. To be accurate, future predictions should fall withing a small percentage of the actual change and have the same sign as the actual change limited to the precision of the data. AGW computer models have not been able to come close to accurately predicting future climate changes.
Trend lines clearly show that temperature increases and AGG increases significanty diverge repeatedly for a significant portion of the reliable data that we possess. “Long term” is relative to whether you mean 1 year, 10 years, 20 years, 100 years, 100 centuries, 100 millenium, 100 eons, or some other time period. Just because over a particular time period AGG and Global temperature both trend upward proves nothing, because the time period is arbitrary and therefore renders the test unfalsifiable.
I could care less what most scientists would or would not consider a good gamble. Being a scientist does not make one an expert at games of chance where the odds are not known. And I could care less about a fear which has no scientific proof to support it and is not part of my religious faith. I respect your right though to follow the dictates of your personal or religious faith if it tells you to believe and fear in a AGW tipping point.
The only action that I can see as avisable based upon scientific evidence is the creation of a government study of interdiciplinary scientists for all specialties that can be used to observe and affect the global climate. Since this is a highly politizied topic and the likelyhood of intentional or unintentional bias being interjected into the research, extradorinary methods such as double and triple blind testing need to be implemented. Also more than one team needs to be assigned to work on particular pieces totally isolated from the other teams performing tandem research. The research should lead to hypothesis which lead to predictions which lead to falsifiable tests. This will help us increase our understanding. Whether this takes 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years to provide a solid understanding backed by falsifiable tests, we shouldn’t make any drastic allocation of resources until we have a firm scientific backed understanding of what is influencing the global climate and if it is possible for man to affect the global climate in a meaningful and positive to mankind way. We also need a scientifically backed cost estimate of taking different types of action and of doing nothing. Until then we’re a blind man attempting to thread a needle randomly placed in a thousand square mile field of haystacks.
First let us get the definition of “consensus” out of the way. World book defines consensus as, 1.) agreement in opinion ; the opinion of all or most of the people consulted. 2.) general agreement .
Neither of these definitions of the word lead me to believe that a consensus about anything is somehow irrefutable as Perry puts it. And to say because there is a consensus about anything is reason enough to take action that might lead to the collapse of our economy and our food supply is just irresponcible. Would we throw gasoline on a burning house if enough people agreed it was the right thing to do, or would we allow our common sence to take over and use water.
And now Perry to respond directly to something you said, ” the data is irrefutable, we have global warming, and we have increased atmospheric greenhouse gases, and we have man’s behavior accounting for the increase”, well first of all you make quite a few leaps of faith in that statement, but anyway, all to often people who wish to believe in MMGW mistake correlation for causation . While the things you listed may correlate it does not mean that they are the cause of global warming. Again that is like saying that if a light in my house blinks out at the precise moment that a door slams shut, that the door slamming shut is what caused the light to blink out, but that would exclude the possibilty that it was just the bulbs time to go,and since you cannot recreate that exact bulb and filament , there is no way to prove that the door caused the bulb to burn out. Well it is possible that it is time for the earth to warm, which just happens to coincide with a rise in green house gases. There is also evidence that the sun is getting brighter and warmer, but I’m sure that is man’s fault also.
And Perry since you have mentioned religion at least twice in this thread, and even though I don’t subscribe to a religion but do consider myself a person of faith , I’ll take the bait and say that I do not believe that man has the abillity to destroy that which God created, and if it is God’s design to destroy this world then we have no power to stop it. And yes this does play into my point of view on the issue. The same as your blind faith in Dr. James Hansen and the things he tells you plays into your view of the issue. You can no more prove the things he says are anymore correct then the things I say , you just choose to believe in him.
Speaking of confusing correlation to causation, I remember a story about a friend of mine who was doing computer support for AST computers several years ago. He was trying to help a woman whose computer rebooted everytime she flushed he toliet. This made no since unless Larry, Moe, and Curly did the plumbing and the eletrical wiring for the house. He could have just told the woman to build an outhouse as a solution. But after several house talking to the woman as they went through flush/reboot after flush/reboot he gained a few more facts. She lived way out in the coutry and depended on a well for her water. Whenever she flused the well pump kicked off. This caused a surge in electricity to flow through the house. The computer being without a surge protector rebooted. She went to the local Walmart and spent a few dollars on a cheap surge protecter and the problem was solved. Much cheaper and much more convient than building and using an outhouse.
Irbinfrisco, you have obviously thought deeply about this, but, you have made many assertions against the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory without attribution, contrary to my attribution for my assertions, the IPCC consensus report. Therefore your assertions are not nearly as credible. You should know that and admit to it!
That said, now I will admit that I should not have chosen the term “irrefutable” data, instead the work “compelling” data would have been a better choice. A consensus of scientists find the data compelling.
And Frank, there is indeed a scientific consensus about AGW. Nevertheless, you seem to latch on to the critics because you fear economic repercussions if we do what we must. Well YES! We are indeed faced with a core problem here.
But let me say, in science there are always critics, thus motivating further research, as is continuing among those critics of the AGW Theory as well as those intent on checking and trying to firm up the Theory. That said, you cannot claim that the critics carry the day until they have developed a scientific consensus for their alternate theory. That takes time. We don’t have time to wait on this one. This is science, Frank. I have spent a 50 year career fully immersed in science.
Nearly 20,000 scientists say there isn’t a consensus. Therefore there is none. There wasn’t even one with the U. N. Climate report. Some of the scientists claimed to have signed on have disavowed the report. They weren’t consulted on the final report and their disagreement was over looked.
You can claim the theory has majority acceptance, but you know that does not make it correct or incorrect. The computer modeling is more consistent with the majority of the climate change coming from solar activity and ocean warming and cooling. I do think it is fanciful to discount man’s effect by deforestation and fossil fuels. It is a complicated interaction that we do not yet understand fully. One can not be blamed for wanting to be careful when making policy.
Perry,
I have asserted very little and have mostly used fairly simplistic logic. What I have asserted to are well known and very noncontroversial facts. I can provide you multiple links discussing these facts upon request, but I have not done this since it would be a total waste of space for most people with even a basic familiarity with science and AGW.
Let me review what I have asserted:
1. To be considered a scientific theory, the theory must conform to the Scientific Method. Do you have any questions, concerns or doubts about this. Or can I assume that we are in agreement here?
2. The Scientific Method states that a hypothesis must pass at least one rigorous falsifiable test and preferable several such tests before it can be considered a scientific theory. Do you have any questions, concerns or doubts about this? Or can I assume that we are in agreement here?
3. There does not appear to any falsifiable test that have been identified and accepted by a large number of scientists that would prove or disprove the hypothesis of AGW where those test have been conducted and the results and known. I can’t say that there aren’t any, but I haven’t found any nor have you been able to identify any except one that would take 50 years to complete if started now. I have identifed one, but there is not definitive evidence that it is accepted by a large of scientists. That test would show the hypothesis of AGW to be false though. Do you agree with this or not? If not, give me a link or reference to a falsifiable test that has been conducted. I can’t give a reference to something that hasn’t happened or hasn’t been shown to exist.
4. The rest of the assertions are well known facts about the gathering and calculation of global temperature. Let me know if you have any questions, concerns, or doubts here.
Now as to the IPCC, the report states that no research was done by the IPCC. It is only claimed that the members of the IPCC looked at current research and produced a report stating their interpretation and opinion on global warming based upon a identified process where no single person looked at all or even most of the current research. Both politicians and politically appointed scientists made up the IPCC with politicians having the ultimate approval of what was included. Also not even person who reviewed or helped compile the information had their comments included in the final report. There was a process of winnowing the information. All this information is readily available on the IPCC home web site as well as their published reports.
As for there being a consensus or majority that support the IPCC latest published report endorsing the hypothesis of AGW, there is not a falsifiable test that has been conducted to show that a consensus does or does not exist. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence, but some pieces support consensus while other pieces dispute consensus. Depending on where one wishes to place one’s faith determines whether someone believes in consensus.
As for whether data supporting AGW is compelling or not, it is a subjective judgement. There does not exist any objective scientific proof that AGW is real or imaginary. Once could argue that there exists much greater and more elaborate data to support the “theory” that God exists. However like AGW, there are no falsifiable scientific tests that show whether God does or does not exist. And like AGW, one must except the existance of Gob based upone faith, not scientific proof.
Irbinfrisco,
I agree with #1. I don’t agree with #2. What was the falsifiable test of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity when it became known as a theory?
A theory can arise due to scientific consensus; a theory can be nothing more than a powerful speculation, an new explanation that then drives research. It has multiple meanings:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
We have the Big Bang Theory. Now we have the String Theory. Neither meets your criterion of having passed a falsifiable test.
Therefore your requirement for the Anthropogenic Global Warming “Theory” is untenable.
Even were it tenable, we do not appear to have the time to perform a falsifiable test, as I mentioned earlier.
Thus we are talking semantics now wrt the designation of “theory” or otherwise.
The best we can do with the AGM Theory is to continue to test it and to refine the data.
Moreover you have chosen here to attack the credentials of the messenger, the IPCC. The IPCC represents a scientific consensus! It is wise to have policy makers also involved, because the main challenge is to translate our current understanding of the AGM science into policy.
People like you who “logically” knit-pick the data do so to impede the policy making process, perhaps for political ideological purposes. Go ahead and knit-pick the data, to improve the measurements — that is a reasonable contribution to the science! But stop trying to use the knit-picking for political purposes, which I suspect is exactly what you are doing. Please correct me if I am wrong.
To be credible, you AGM critics need to mount an IPCC-like effort as a counter.
You know as well as I that you cannot accomplish this because you will not be able to generate a consensus. You critics are all over the place with your knit-picking.
Now let’s get off the semantics and on to making the policies that the globe desperately needs in order to save this planet from unmitigated turmoil first and soon, and possible eventual extinction.
David: “The computer modeling is more consistent with the majority of the climate change coming from solar activity and ocean warming and cooling.”
I don’t think you are correct:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30666
Majority or consensus? That’s semantics as well. The point is that a sizable number of scientists who are experts in this field have gotten together to warn us that we have a major global catastrophe coming, and that we had better take action to thwart it starting now.
Perry,
you appear to have a fundamentally different definition for science than I do. I’m not sure I even understand what your definition is exactly, but it’s clear it’s very different from the one that I was taught throughout my elementry, secondary, and university education.
To me science is about following the scientific method. Science eschews relying on faith and ancetdotal evidence. Instead Science relies on repeatable empirical observations and repeatable falsifiable tests of conclusions drawn from the empirical observations. As a scientist, I won’t just take your word or any one else’s word for it. I expect it to be proven to me. I expect to be able to repeat the steps you took to get the same empirical observations. I expect to repeat the steps you took to get the same results for testing my hypothesis. I won’t believe in anything that cannot be proven false. As a scientist I don’t belive in God, because it’s impossible to prove that God doesn’t exist. No so called theory is sacred, although most like the theory of relativity have passed multiple falsifiable test. And other like Newtons laws have failed falsifiable tests.
Apparently you believe that even though there is no proof that AGW is real, the perceived fact that more than 50% of “scientists” believe it is real is enough for you. Even though you don’t know how many scientists this entails, nor what the breakdown is of those that believe versus those who don’t believe by scientific specialty. Even the term “scientist” that you use doesn’t have a very solid definition and constantly shifts with context. There is no falsifiable method to tell if this so called consensus exists or not. I just cannot except such vague and ambigious proof.
What I find amazing is that the industrialized world is seriously considering revamping our entire economy which is based upon the consumption of fossil fuels to provide the vast majority of our energy to an economy that is largely independent of fossil fuels for our energy. And the reason for this is the expressed but unproven fear of an undocumented number of unidentified people who are loosely described as scientists. This would be like betting my house, my job, my health, and all my savings based upon a horse winning the Kentucky Derby based upon what I read in the papers that all the “horse racing people” are saying is the horse to beat. And placing the bet now without doing a lick of investigation on my own to see if this horse looks like a winner because all the “horse racing people” are saying that Vegas will soon stop taking bets because this horse is such a prohibitive favorite. Who knows the horse might win and I might be a multimillionaire and be able to retire and travel the world. But I’m not willing to take that bet. Likewise I’m not willing to commit to any substantial changes to solve AGW until I get some proof.
And as for credibility, I don’t expect anyone to belive me just because I say something is so. Heck I wouldn’t even belive myself without seeing the proof. But thanks to that marvelous tool Google, everone can google up defintions of Science, Scientific Method, falsifiability, etc. Everyone can google AGW and see if there are any falsifiable tests that this hypothesis has passed. People can use their own brains and logic and decide whether they want to demand proof via falsifiable tests or just accept on faith.
And speaking on credibility, I give the IPCC about as much credibility as I do the doofuses running as my congressional representatives, which is to say not a lot. The IPCC is run by a bunch of politicians, and I inherently distrust politicians. But I guess someone has to have faith in them, just glad it’s not me.
Irbinfrisco,
I think I have a pretty good understanding of science. I don’t think you do, the reason being that your concept of “proof” seems to have the attribute of absolutism. There is no absolute in science! A competent, practicing scientist appreciates this basic.
Stated another way, no measurement is exact. That is to say there is uncertainty in every measurement. One goal of scientific inquiry is to push the uncertainty threshold to a finer precision.
Since you do attribute absolutism to science, you are trying to make a religion out of it. The irony is that there are no absolutes in religion either, except that which you accept within yourself as your personal absolute, which is fine for you. Be that as it is, and taking into account your statements about the Anthropogenic Global Warming’s threatening change to the economy, I conclude that your arguments against AGW are ideologically driven, not scientifically driven. Thus you are left with cherry-picking among the AGM critics to try to make your case. This is not at all convincing!
Furthermore, after I pointed out your misconception of what a theory is, and that a theory to be so named does not require a successful falsifiable test, citing examples, citing semantics as a communications challenge, you blow it all off. That is revealing of your lack of knowledge, though I would not anticipate your ever admitting that.
Finally, your attack on the messenger, the IPCC, is not persuasive either. Let us deal in facts, in the data, independent of the source.
Unless you have something new about the science to offer, I don’t see anything more worthwhile to come out of our debate. You could possibly admit that you have more to learn about science, especially about the science behind the AGM theory — I say the same about myself!
In the meantime, I suggest again that you spend a lot more time with the following non-IPCC reference, because it focuses on the data details and the critics thereof of the science behind the AGM theory.
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
You should also google the IPCC web site to download their latest report of 12/2007, and focus on the section for policy makers. That would approach both areas, the scientific and the policy, in which you seem to be so interested.
I knew this would happen. Please everyone go back to my original article and read it again . I ask all of us to just consider for ourselves the information out there from both sides of the issue, and to decide if it makes sence that MMGW is even possible.
If you believe in MMGW say so, but do not justify it by listing other peoples names and degrees, and just say it’s so because , so and so says so, list your own thoughts.
To often we become adversarial in our discussions, we feel that it is more important to be percieved as being right then it is to discover the truth, so we begin to list all of the things that agree with us and ignore all other possibilities. Just look how Perry calls those who disagree with MMGW “critics”, when really they are people with a different point of view. To call them critics tends to lead to the perception that MMGW is a truth .
Once again I will ask all who read this to look at arguments from both sides, and to apply logic and common sence , and not to base you decision on who has the most letters after their name.
Another straw man fallacy from Frank.
Frank, show me where an argument has been made for the AGW Theory based on the “letters after their name”.
Note that I first responded to your original post in #6. Rereading your post, I see nothing more for me to say about it.
I personally have viewed the science with my admittedly limited competence, and I am convinced that we have a crisis on our hands.
Many others much more competent than myself have reached the same conclusion. What is wrong in pointing that out?
You seem to have an automatic, knee-jerk opposition to authority figures, be they in science, in government, in …!
If I feel that I know more about the science than you do, or than irbnfrisco does, I will state my opinion and document my case, as I have done. So what is your reaction to this? “I knew this would happen.” Of course!!!
Then the ball goes back into your court.
What is your basis, Frank, for being a “critic” of the AGM Theory?
I suggest you move outside of yourself to answer this question in an attempt to be more convincing to others, like me!
Perry Hood wrote: “I think I have a pretty good understanding of science. I don’t think you do, the reason being that your concept of “proof” seems to have the attribute of absolutism. There is no absolute in science! A competent, practicing scientist appreciates this basic.”
Perry, there are other alternatives than an all or nothing approach. Proof in the form of falsifiable tests is one such example. It is not absolute. It only shows that predictions based upon observations either are empirically observed to confirm or contradict the predictions. If confirmed, then the hypothesis has evidence or proof to support it but could still be proven wrong by some future test. If contradicted, then it is show that the hypothesis is not correct and either needs to be dicarded or altered to conform to the empirically observations. For hundreds of years Newtons laws were supported by falsifiable tests. But in the last century they were contradicted by a falsifiable test. I agree that there are no absolutes in Science, but there are tests which can offer proof to either confirm or reject a hypothesis. A theory without such test is nothing more than an unsubstanciated guess. This is why I qualified theory by prefacing it with the word scientific. This denotes a specific kind of theory, one which conforms to the scientific method and has been validated by falsifiable tests and has not yet been contradicted by a falsifiable test. The is not a sematical game I’m playing with you. This definition of scientific theory is widely known and accepted in the scientific community, and even more so in the hard or physical sciences.
_______________________________________
Perry Hood wrote: “Stated another way, no measurement is exact. That is to say there is uncertainty in every measurement. One goal of scientific inquiry is to push the uncertainty threshold to a finer precision.”
My themodynamics professors would have had a cow if you’d said this in their class. I was taught that precision in their classes and in the physical sciences represented how detailed your mesurement was. For example 1.0 grams is not as precise as 1.00 grams or 1.01 grams. However I could be precise but not accurate. If I had a scale that measured to 1/100 of a gram but weighed everthing as 1/10 of a gram heavier than it actually was, then I’ve have very precise measurements but not very accurate ones.
Now I assume that you meant that precise to be accurate. And if so I think that we are in agreement. But I do think that there are at least two components here. For example, with GW if we had no way to measure temperature to less than 1 degree K, it would be very difficult to see any changes in the past century in global temperatures. But we also want to make sure that the temperatures being measured are accurate. It appears that the many of the temperatures aren’t always accurate, as they are being adjusted for multiple reasons. The ability to increase both accuracy and precision would be helpful in better understanding the climate. As technology and our scientific understanding progresses, we should see these improvements.
___________________________________________
Perry Hood wrote: “Since you do attribute absolutism to science, you are trying to make a religion out of it. The irony is that there are no absolutes in religion either, except that which you accept within yourself as your personal absolute, which is fine for you. Be that as it is, and taking into account your statements about the Anthropogenic Global Warming’s threatening change to the economy, I conclude that your arguments against AGW are ideologically driven, not scientifically driven. Thus you are left with cherry-picking among the AGM critics to try to make your case. This is not at all convincing!”
First as I have pointed out earlier, I do not attribute absolutism to science. Second I don’t try to make science out to be a religion. It is not IMO. Science is opposite of religion. Religion relies on faith or believe in things which are true but cannot be verified by empirical observations. Science only believes in that which can be verified through empirical observations. Religion is absolute. For most Chrisitian religions it is an absolute that God created the world. Not every person who professes to be a Christian may believe this, but the religion itself contains this as a core component of its doctrine. Science as we have discussed and agreed is not absolute. What is proven true today, may be proven to be not true tomorrow.
As for my arguments against Global Warming, they are driven by my understanding of the Scientific Method. And I don’t see how any intelligent person could truthfully claim that cutting our burning of fossil fuels to a small percentage of what is taking place now would result in no change to the economy. Heck the change in the price of oil forces a change on the economy. And like the global climate, the economy is constantly changing. But our modern industrial economy is dependent on energy production, primarily electrical energy. Now we are going to change the source of that for most of our energy and you’re saying it will result in on changes to the economy? And further more you have no proof other than some guesses by “scientists” to back up this preposterous assertion. I don’t see how this concern wouldn’t have an effect on any sane person.
_________________________________________
Perry Hood wrote: “Furthermore, after I pointed out your misconception of what a theory is, and that a theory to be so named does not require a successful falsifiable test, citing examples, citing semantics as a communications challenge, you blow it all off. That is revealing of your lack of knowledge, though I would not anticipate your ever admitting that.”
I blew you off because I had defined a particular type of theory, and you blew that blew that definition off. Again, I specifically referred to a scientific theory and defined it as conforming to the Scientific Method. Sure theory has tons of a definitions. But either a “theory” meets this definition or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, it nothing more than specualation.
____________________________________________
Perry Hood wrote: “Finally, your attack on the messenger, the IPCC, is not persuasive either. Let us deal in facts, in the data, independent of the source.”
The IPCC isn’t the source of any scientific facts. The IPCC doesn’t do research, it reviews the research of others and offers opinions. I don’t think that those opinions are worth anything because of bias that I’ve felt that the IPCC process has injected. Don’t confuse this with facts or data, because it’s not. But even if I trusted the IPCC to render opinion without injecting bias, I would still want to see the proof. And by proof I’d want to see the predictions based on the data collected in research. I’d want to see the tests and their results for those predictions. I’d want to see what it would take to prove AGW wrong. But it doesn’t seem that there are any empirical observations that AGW supporters will admit that could possibly prove AGW wrong. I even wonder if 80% of the water on the planet froze during the next year and temperatures decreased to the lowest level ever observed if that would do it. But it shouldn’t take anything drastic like that to disprove a true scientific theory.
_________________________________________
The bottom line is that the evidence that AGW is not a significant danger to mankind or to the planet is far more compelling to me that that which supports it. Mainly because there is a major falsifiable test that AGW has failed, warming has not matched increased man made greenhouse gases. Significant portions of the historical record of direct empirical temperature observation even show negative warming as MMGG increased.
I think that best that you and I can hope to accomplish is to come to an agreement to disagree.
You are correct, irbnfrisco, we will have to agree to disagree on acceptance of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory, though there is some agreement and some disagreement on what constitutes an acceptable theory.
That said, let’s look at what you said about the IPCC: “The IPCC isn’t the source of any scientific facts. “
Wrong. It is not the source of the science, but it certainly is the source for many scientific findings. I take it you have not looked at the IPCC report very carefully.
I said: “Stated another way, no measurement is exact. That is to say there is uncertainty in every measurement. One goal of scientific inquiry is to push the uncertainty threshold to a finer precision.”
I stand corrected: I should have included accuracy with precision.
You seem to make a point of the distinction between “scientific theory” and “theory”, in order to justify your requirement for a falsifiable test in order to have the AGW theory accepted. First of all, there is no such distinction. Are you going to tell me that the Theory of Relativity, the Big Bang Theory, and String Theory are not scientific theories? Nonsense, sorry!
I think at least we can agree that we are experiencing global warming. Whether it is anthropogenic, whether we are at the tipping point, I am sure there will be continuing debate on these two scientific issues. At my level of comprehensive, I have examined some of the data, I have read some of the IPCC Report December 2007, and I have read the Hansen statements. These convince me that enhanced global warming, since man’s massive use of fossil fuels together with deforestation, is real, and that we must take steps immediately to begin to reduce our fossil fuel use and discontinue deforestation without concomitant renewal.
Keep in mind that fossil fuels come from under the ground to above the ground as we pump or mine it, thereby adding carbon above ground where we live, apparently at a rate that the natural carbon cycle cannot keep up. This is why atmospheric CO2, one of the greenhouse gases, has almost doubled since the industrial revolution. This CO2 increase correlates with the faster increase in global warming over the same time period. That scientifically verifiable fact in itself is cause for great concern to me!
First Perry you might want to stop throwing around the theory of relativity, Einstein developed this “theory ” through deep philosophical thought, and complex mathematical reasonings, but no physical proof was or could be offered to prove or disprove the theory. Einstein once said himself that only about a dozen people in the world could understand his theory. Not much of a consensus eh! Also Einstein was not convinced himself about his own theory of relativity because it did not include electromagnetism . I say all of this to show that even those who first believe themselves correct often have the intellectual honesty to admit they are wrong, unfortunately politicians who inact mandates are selodom this type of person.
As for the big bang theory , please show me how you will prove that anymore correct then those of us who believe we were created by a higher being. Please tell me what blew up and where did that matter come from? First of all there is no such thing as a complete void , for to contemplate a complete void something must exist to contemplate it. To believe the big bang theory we must believe that out of complete nothingness all was created by pure chance, now that takes real faith.But the real point when arguing about theories is that they are called theories for a reason, because they have not been proven as fact. Now the difference between believing in relativity and the big bang or believing in MMGW , is that to believe in the first two causes no damage to this world , no one is asked to sacrifice a singal thing to the cause of believing in them, but we are asked to give up our way of life for the cause of believing in MMGW.
You have acussed me of building straw men , but what is this so called MMGW if not a straw man? We are told that we must act now to stop the global temperature from rising one degree Celsius in the next thousand years or so(by the way that is an average not a hard one degree). So we are asked to ruin our standard of living and put our nation at risk (while others such as China and India continue to grow their industrial power) , now based on a scientific guess at best to prevent something that can not be proven or confirmed. I am sorry but I feel the risk of immediate ramifications of imposing restrictions upon our most important indutries far out weigh and are far more tangible than the long shot possibllity of the world being destroyed by what is a naturally accuring bi- product of life on this planet.
And when I start to see more of the loudest proponents of these ristrictions changing their life styles by doing more than buying carbon credits, then maybe their arguments will carry more weight , but as long as they fly their private jets, live in homes that consume enough energy to power small communities, all the while telling average citizens to conserve, well they can just kiss my great big carbon foot print.
Frank wrote: “First Perry you might want to stop throwing around the theory of relativity, Einstein developed this “theory ” through deep philosophical thought, and complex mathematical reasonings, but no physical proof was or could be offered to prove or disprove the theory.”
Exactly my point, Frank, but you overlook my reason for making this point. I “tossed around” the example theories I mentioned to point out to Irbnfrisco that he had his own narrow definition of what a theory must be to be accepted as theory by the scientific community. He used this fallacious argument to dispel the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory. I hope you are more knowledgeable than that!
You are going off on a tangent with the Big Bang Theory, but as far as I know it does not describe the nature of the beginning of the Universe, except to guess that the beginning constituted energy only, not matter. Don’t forget that Einstein theorized that energy and matter are interconvertible. For example, light waves sometimes behave as a particle, sometimes as an energy packet. The big bang origin is unknown; it has been described as “…a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past…” Not knowing the origin does not disprove the Big Bang Theory; rather it renders the theory incomplete, as by definition ALL theories are since there are no absolutes in science, none!
As to your criticism of the behavior of whomever, that is your reason to deny the state of the science on AGM? That really is very weak. That is like denying those whose beliefs are with Christianity because we have the likes of Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Baker et al, as tempting as that may be to do. We call this “shooting the messenger”.