FREEMAN DYSON wrote a very good article about the need for heretics in science
A quote: "I would like to ask two questions. First, if the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is allowed to continue, shall we arrive at a climate similar to the climate of six thousand years ago when the Sahara was wet? Second, if we could choose between the climate of today with a dry Sahara and the climate of six thousand years ago with a wet Sahara, should we prefer the climate of today? My second heresy answers yes to the first question and no to the second. It says that the warm climate of six thousand years ago with the wet Sahara is to be preferred, and that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may help to bring it back. I am not saying that this heresy is true. I am only saying that it will not do us any harm to think about it."
Perhaps, but the real problem is the rate of change of climate. In the time scale it takes for the ecosystem to adapt, global warming is instantaneous and, hence, disruptive. Evolution and adaption are powerful but slow mechanisms.
The finches on the Galapagos Islands have been observed closely over a long period, and seen to change from year to year in response to climate (and therefore food supply) variations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_Rosemary_Grant .
I think you're seriously overestimating the time needed for ecosystems to adapt, and for lineages of organisms to change significantly.
For each of your examples which show successful adaption, I believe that there are others that show that species have been dying out because they cannot adapt or evolve because of the rapid changes occurring in the ecosystem or because the niche to which they adapted is no longer there.
I would prefer not to see humanity bet the ranch on the ability of the global ecosystem to adapt rapidly when there is scant evidence that such an adaption will happen at all, much less, happen quickly and painlessly. I think we need to gather more data and learn more about the way our global ecosystem functions. I thin it is prudent to work hard to minimize the quantities of greenhouse gas dumped into the atmosphere, move to renewable energy sources, and generally try to not perturb the system until we understand it.
In a stable environment a large greedy specialist often does better then a lean thrifty generalist. In a more dynamic environment a lean thrifty generalist does better then a larger greedy specialist.
The problem is our methods of food production: Specialized, concentrated and resource hungry. We might have to become more generalized, distributed and efficient.
[Note: Currently "efficiency" is often mistake to mean "externalizing the cost", "doing less", etc. Here it means "more productive with less resources" and "working smarter not harder"]
Our food lacks any real bio-diversity, it all requires nearly the same conditions to grow. For every joule of food we are currently using more then 10 joule of energy, basically we are turning oil into food. And it's not very mobile.
It's not just going to be a simple rise in temperature, it's likely that other things will change, like rainfall patterns or air currents. If the jet stream shifts, the UK might get colder. Would Siberia really be more habitable if it's a mosquito-infested swamp all year long?
Personally the global warming thing kind of fries my brain.
I'm an ecologist by training, but there are so many papers there that it's impossible for me to make a good decision about it. On a scientific level, I find myself screwed.
I'm inclined to trust scientists because I am one, but I'm disinclined to trust the establishment because I'm a libertarian. So no help for me there. On a loyalty level, I am screwed.
However, this is my rationalization for doing nothing about global warming (the position of the agnostic): The amount of co2 in the upper atmosphere is increasing at amazing rate (280 ppm pre-industrially to 388 ppm, current); this is a fact. All the proposed legislation would have a completely negligible effect on this. In order to really stop global warming, not just slow it down, we would need all nations to completely stop co2 production. That isn't going to happen. So if global warming is real, our paltry policy is going to do nothing to stop it. So why bother?
Anyway, just to emphasize, this is my rationalization. It's just something to make me feel better for being unable to grasp the topic scientifically.
As a libertarian, you might find it useful to consider some meta evidence. Those supporting global warming and who have been pushing for this are generally politicians such as Al Gore and the IPCC. Those opposing it are generally business interests, presumably the oil producers if the pro-AGW people are correct.
Businesses make their money by keeping their employees, their customers and their shareholders happy. Looking at the history of pollution from a geographic perspective on a global basis, the worst polluters are generally governments and countries where there is low standard of living or slower economic growth due to un-libertarian political government. Richer, free-er societies tend to have less pollution. Anyway, contrary to businesses government operates by edict and uses force to ensure compliance. Corporations can only plead or incentivize, governments can force. But in order to avoid rebellion, governments must make their subjects believe that they are being force to "do the right thing".
In every area of life where there is government you can find propaganda saying that government control is the right thing. The Global Warming movement originated with government, government controls the purse strings and refuses to fund people who find evidence that does not support the political position, and thus this is simply a case of governments doing the propaganda thing to be able to pass laws that give them extraordinary control over their economies.
Since reading all the papers is admittedly a non-trivial affair, consider the motives of the groups.
It's true that richer countries tend to have less pollution, but it's false to say it's the result of the free market. The U.S. has strict government-mandated emission controls. I know that in car emissions the U.S. was actually the leader in such controls; the European mini was missing from U.S. streets starting in the mid 1960s because it did not meet the U.S.'s strict standards.
Most societies have pretty bad pollution when they are beginning to industrialize, and then become rich enough to afford emissions controls via government regulation.
Re: businesses, I do tend to favor free market solutions. But one thing that this does not work well at all for is any time there is a common resource; the atmosphere is such a common resource. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
It's actually rational for any individual or business to exploit it such a common resource. This is why many libertarians advocate private ownership of land instead of government ownership; if people are farming a rented plot of land, they'll gladly strip it of nutrients. If they own that piece of land, they'll be more likely to treat it well so it will continue to support them.
As for the motives of the groups, it's obvious that neither group necessarily has our best interest at heart. Businesses are a great boon to society not because they are trying to help society, but because by trying to make money, they produce cheap goods. Governments are ostensibly in the business of trying to help society, but of course they are merely composed of people who want to get paid for doing their job. In the end both are after profit, which is fine. I don't think it necessarily says anything about who is correct about GW though.
>I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
This guy has a lot of gall to end with that after making such flimsy allegations of fraud against an entire academic discipline. His hyperbolic screeching about the "flood of money" would better be directed at the oil industry.
That's not to say the climate change crowd is without its biases, but if he honestly thinks that they are intentionally committing fraud for love of money and prestige, he is deluded.
Personally, I think that the people he slanders are acting honestly, but I might present a more modest hypothesis:
The people who do research on the climate and on the environment have a dramatic love of forests and lakes and natural, untouched wilderness. Anyone who stands in the midst of the mountains cannot help but see why this is. These people might even be willing to lie to protect them. Money, I assure you, has nothing to do with it. But unfailing love of the natural world? Sure, there are people who would lie without hesitation to protect that. But money? Money has very little importance to people who advocate for reductions in fossil fuels, and I think Hal Lewis' focus on money shows how little he understands the people he maligns.
I don't include myself among them because I am no such researcher, but I share their values, their love of the wild things. Lewis, I'm not entirely sure what he loves. I find it difficult to believe he's really interested in science. I can't believe a rationalist would look at any of the evidence available and be so convinced of fraud.
Money has very little importance to people who advocate for reductions in fossil fuels...
Money has a great deal of importance to a scientist wishing to study forests and natural, untouched wilderness. It has even more importance to a scientist who wants to build a supercomputer to simulate (over)simplified models of the atmosphere and ocean.
As for Lewis, I suspect he loves the scientific method. Find data, generate hypothesis, expose your methods to everyone and pray that you spotted all the flaws in your argument/analysis. He expresses anger that this process has been subverted and the APS is trying to ignore it.
>Money has a great deal of importance to a scientist wishing to study forests and natural, untouched wilderness. It has even more importance to a scientist who wants to build a supercomputer to simulate (over)simplified models of the atmosphere and ocean.
It has far more importance (and much more zeroes!) to a scientist who conducts studies on behalf of Energy Industry or for Corporations in said industry.
>As for Lewis, I suspect he loves the scientific method. Find data, generate hypothesis, expose your methods to everyone and pray that you spotted all the flaws in your argument/analysis. He expresses anger that this process has been subverted and the APS is trying to ignore it.
Well, I guess the only option in that case is to proceed with his own independent study?
>scientist who wants to build a supercomputer to simulate (over)simplified models of the atmosphere and ocean
So we shall conduct experiments only when we have complete model for everything?
He makes some good points, but probably goes too far when he starts impugning the motives of others.
The APS shouldn't have dashed off such a dodgy statement about climate change without better consultation with its thousands of members (including me). And the word "incontrovertible" is too strong for just about anything in science, and shouldn't have been used.
Debate is being intentionally suppressed, data is intentionally being manipulated and obscured, sources of information go missing, trillions of dollars are being poured in by Governments to influence the outcome, and outcomes are being declared by stacked committees. Call it what you want, just don't call it science.
If you're going to throw grenades like this please also provide some specific citations that back up your position. Otherwise, it's difficult to take you seriously.
Or, more substantively, does the climate science field really look like something that has endless funding? If that were the case, then they'd be limited by manpower, not money.
Colleges and universities would be going all-out to attract talent to climate science programs, in order to be able to staff lots of grants and get the fountains of government cash. Promising high school students would be treated like football stars, with no NCAA limits on gifts, in order to fill undergrad programs. Graduate programs would likewise be dangling cars and sex in front of top undergrads.
Universities would be building Taj Mahal climate science research facilities, the better to hold all those grad students and get the fat grants from the government.
I don't really see that happening.
Nor does anyone actually think climate science is "where the money is". Why would anyone waste time on HN if there were trillions of dollars, or even hundreds of billions, flowing into climate science?
Even big science projects like the National Ignition Facility that approach $10 billion only do so over the course of many years.
"but if he honestly thinks that they are intentionally committing fraud for love of money and prestige, he is deluded."
It's official, sprout, the non-researcher thinks that an American Physical Society of sixty-seven years is wrong simply 'because'. Without reading the emails of climategate, sprout leads us to the truth intrinsic to himself only.
Floods of money are directed to "the oil industry", often times by customers. Money is flooding scientific research by tax dollars aimed at manipulating the public. It's not like a carbon-credit market props itself up, right?
I read the emails that supposedly show fraud. There's nothing indicative that it's systemic.
Furthermore, the 'ClimateGate' emails only barely show fraud. No, I haven't read them all, but every source I saw pointed to the same exact 'trick' emails, and no one could show anything dirty in the rest.
There are two ways of reducing fossil fuel consumption: reduce demand and reduce supply. Reducing supply (by preventing drilling new wells, embargoing oil producers and bombing foreign oil wells) is currently ahead, thus the price has risen from $30ish to $80ish / bbl. Owners of existing wells have made a huge windfall. It would be surprising if they weren't heavily interested in further supply reductions.
But it sometimes does - see, for example, the debunked "vaccines cause autism" research that was promoted by lawyers trying to get rich.
With climate change, there's plenty of money on both sides, thus probably some malfeasance going on in both camps, but the consensus is definitely for it existing:
If that's not convincing, the US military is convinced of it, and is already looking into the political/military effects of climate change - they're not known to be a particularly progressive organization...
The US military has experimented with LSD, psychic phenomena and for a period of time "Believed" in UFOs.
The "vaccines cause autism" is another political issue where pseudo science is being used to argue for government dictating medical choices to families. The "Debunkings" I've seen have been political nonsense.
I don't take a position either way on whether vaccines can cause autism. Just that the constant propaganda on this issue is a form of a political witch hunt that has nothing to do with science.
> The "vaccines cause autism" is another political issue where pseudo science is being used to argue for government dictating medical choices to families. The "Debunkings" I've seen have been political nonsense.
> I don't take a position either way on whether vaccines can cause autism. Just that the constant propaganda on this issue is a form of a political witch hunt that has nothing to do with science.
My understanding is that there was one paper (now retracted) claiming a possible link, followed by the author telling the press there was a link, followed by (1) many papers disproving any link and (2) lots of "OMG PANIC" news stories and celebrities telling people to do stupid shit.
Side note: one of the most awesome parts about getting old is that you can say exactly how you feel about things. I found parts of his letter undiplomatic (to say the least), but I also felt I was actually sitting down and talking to the guy. That type of honest forthrightness (and not contrived outrage or sliming people for political reasons) isn't seen very much. Agree or disagree, I am able to empathize with the author.
For people interested in the background of this letter of resignation, you might want to read this paper. The deniers of global warming are a small, well organized, and well funded group with interesting political and social connections.
http://deepclimate.org/2010/09/26/strange-scholarship-wegman... is the one-page abstract. It points at 2 PDFs: a 6-pager that has a a ToC, Executive Summary, background, and guide to reading the rest; and a 250-page Report, of which that is the first 6 pages. (The main discussion is about 25 pages, then backed by 200+ pages of
appendices.)
Cue the global warming conspiracy theorists to spin this far and wide.
What makes it interesting is that to me there really can't be a global warming scam, it either is real, or it is not, we may be able to do something about it, or it may turn out we're along for the ride.
But which ever of those is the case it is not going to hurt us one bit to know.
Writing it all off as a scam is going way too fast, some people have been messing with the data, that much has been established but we are nowhere near the point where the whole thing should be written off.
edit: would the downmodders be so kind as to explain which part of the above was the reason for the moderation?
I downmodded this because it's content-free ("Either AGW is real, or it's not. Maybe we should find out.") and it's sprinkled with emotionally-laden words like "scam" and "conspiracy theorists." I don't think it's good to approach a flamewar-prone topic like that.
It is real or it is not is simply indicating that I think that as far as the science is concerned this is still an open question, even though you can find plenty of stuff out there which states with great levels of certitude that it is the one or the other, I simply disagree with that.
As for the conspiracy theorists, yes, I really do believe they will be all over this, any high profile person that would use words like "It is of course, the global warming scam" (which came directly from the article) is going to find their words quoted forever by those that would rather deny the possibility of this somehow being effected by humanity.
I'm on the fence I'd like to know but I don't, anybody that is yelling 'scam' or 'for sure' is most likely pushing an agenda.
So I'm all for science to be done here preferably in as independent a style as possible with a strong accent on transparency.
Why do you say you're on the fence when you characterize those who are skeptical of the AGW theory as "conspiracy theorists"?
As an aside, I find this characterization generally amusing because it seems to come from an assumption that conspiracies are so rare as to not be worth considering. The climategate scandal is a pretty clear conspiracy. In fact, the review policy of APS that he's objecting to is a conspiracy. I think it would be hard to argue that conspiracies are rare. Every time more than one person cooperates to hide, obscure or perpetuate a fraud, it is a conspiracy. APS's policies that affect selection of papers based on a pre-scientific conclusion are in effect a fraudulent distortion of the state of the art in physics.
Being skeptical is one thing, categorically dismissing each and every finding of fact as cooked up to manufacture a story that has not rational basis is quite another.
Everybody is entitled to their opinions, but not everybody gets to have their own facts.
Global warming is not a theory, it is a fact, enough evidence that is beyond reproach of any kind is left that we can safely conclude that this is apparently really so.
What remains is whether - and if so to what extent - we are contributory to this and regardless of whether we are if this is something that we can do something about it and if we should (assuming that we can).
Conspiracy theorists reject the whole thing out of hand and make it seem as though all of it, evidence included was made up. That puts them right out there with the people that don't believe men ever walked on the moon.
There are conspiracy theorists on both sides of this debate, and somewhere in the middle you will find people working hard - and not all of them because they are on the payroll of an institution with an agenda- to try to find out what is really going on.
> Global warming is not a theory, it is a fact, enough evidence that is beyond reproach of any kind is left that we can safely conclude that this is apparently really so.
Relativity is a theory, even though it has been experimentally verified. Newtonian mechanics and the luminiferous aether are also theories.
Gravity, global warming (on any given timescale), the freezing point of water, and the presence of little green men on Mars are facts.
But in order to conclude that global warming is a true fact, you need to specify it better. "The earth was warmer at the end of 2008 than at the end of 2005" is false[1]; "the earth was warmer at the end of 2009 than at the end of 1999" is true; "the earth was warmer at the end of 2008 than at the end of 1988" depends on whether you're talking about monthly (true) or trailing-12-months (false) measurements. If you pick your date range right, you can get any truth-value you want.
>Everybody is entitled to their opinions, but not everybody gets to have their own facts.
>Global warming is not a theory, it is a fact,
It seems you feel you are entitled to your own facts. The fact of the matter is, the planet is getting cooler, in recent history, due to the abatement of the solar peak, despite CO2 increasing. These facts are easily verified and disprove your "global warming is fact" claim.
IF you go back far enough you can find that the earth has been warming since the last Ice age. If you go back further you can find that the earth has gone thru many of these cycles, including having CO2 rise as the temperature rises, even before there were human societies.
I believe you believe in this "fact" because it is a religion to you, and you believe in it like christians believe in jesus. Thus, you are the target of your own criticism of rejecting things out of hand.
IF you were being the least bit honest, you would recognize that global warming is a theory. And a very dubious one at that, with a long history of fabrication and dishonesty behind it, that originated in political, not scientific circles and which shows a clear political purpose.
The politicians have the motive- to gain extraordinary control over the economy. They have the opportunity- control over scientific funding and a clear mandate to defund projects that are not consistent with global warming theory. And a history of falsifications and other frauds coming to light.
This makes you a religious zealot who thinks that simply calling something a "fact" is some sort of an argument.
> which ever of those is the case it is not going to hurt us one bit to know.
This seems to be the major contention being brought up in the letter. Not that GW is completely and purely a scam or should be completely written off (as you imply he is suggesting), but that the process for understanding and studying it has been corrupted by money and that attempts to put together a "topical group" to study it have been ignored for political reasons.
Yes, but that might easily be a case of sour grapes because it is not his proposal that got accepted.
I really got that vibe from the article, that this was as much about him not being part of the 'in' group as it was about a suddenly found set of principles over which to resign from this body.
You could characterize it that way, but realize also that if the set of the "in group" is people whose livelihoods are based on finding evidence for AGW theory and those in the "out" group are those who don't, then the set of people is the same as the set of theories.
I'm not sure where you're getting "denialist" from his article. He doesn't say anything about whether there is or isn't global warming, or whether humans are or are not causing at least a portion of it. His charge is that the APS, instead of fostering open debate, is stifling it. I do think he's too preoccupied with money as a motivation for why the stifling is being done; but his primary charge is basically that scientists aren't doing their due diligence the way they used to:
"As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time...How different it is now."
When I read the IPCC reports, for example, I find it hard to disagree with this assessment; even before ClimateGate we had plenty of evidence that what went into those reports was largely politically, not scientifically, determined. Note that this does not mean the IPCC reports are entirely wrong, nor does it mean that global warming will not be a problem. It means the reports don't make a good enough case for, say, emasculating the entire world economy in order to maybe, possibly, reduce the global temperature rise over the next century by a fraction of a degree Celsius.
well, he does use terms like "the global warming scam" and "the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist" which are typically associated with denialists.
True, but I give him credit for using words a little more precisely than your average media hack. It's clear to me from the context that by "scam" and "fraud" he means not the simple claim that the climate is warming, nor even the claim that humans may be causing at least a portion of it, but the whole edifice that's been erected to drive certain political policies that are not justified by the state of the science, and to suppress any suggestion that those policies might not be justified.
agreed, the main tone of his article is somebody lamenting "scientists behaving badly" and remarking on the changes since the good old days. no idea whether or not he's a denialist, i was just trying to highlight that the language he uses could lead people to assume that.
Are there any good links that give a fair and balanced* view of both sides? I realise that I could be asking for the impossible here, but for example, I'm finding it difficult to find a view against climate change that doesn't irritate me by mentioning mediaeval temperature logs and yet criticise the modern temperature logs for accuracy.
Fair and balanced is an awkward way to approach a scientific question. If you want unbiased, probably the best you can do is to read some of the original papers and then rebuttals. This definitely is not easy lifting.
Then having read those, and having formed in your mind the relative strengths and weaknesses of their arguments, start to do research on these. Then read the IPCC report, and then search through the "ClimateGate" emails for background.
Alternatively, delegate this to a trusted party. Find someone who has done these things and otherwise seems qualified and trustable, and simply accept their opinion on the matter. But it's hard to figure out who to trust unless you've read some of the primary sources yourself.
Personally, I'd choose an old physicist or experienced statistician over a climate scientist or computer modeler. If nothing else, they have less to gain professionally from offering a specific answer. But you'll have to make up your own mind.
There aren't two sides of this. The vast majority of scientists that know what's going on are terrified. A few, many paid by the same lobby organizations that backed FUD on cigarette smoking, are creating a "debate".
Only one credible climatologists is vehemently disagreeing with the consensus. By the time we know who was right, it'll be too late.
The science of greenhouse gases was figured out in the 19th century. Given how much we're spewing into the atmosphere, critics should be proving that something else is causing the recent heat records.
Merely pointing out that models aren't perfect predictors, or that some esoteric and uncontrollable phenomenon is responsible for some of the warming does nothing useful to help us decide how to act.
"Merely pointing out that models aren't perfect predictors, or that some esoteric and uncontrollable phenomenon is responsible for some of the warming does nothing useful to help us decide how to act."
Neither does obfuscating the data and the models and how they work. Another commenter mentioned "transparency", and I think that's a key element that's been lacking from the climate scientists. They say they're "terrified", but when they're asked for the raw data and the source code to their models, they refuse to provide it, making it impossible to verify that their terror is justified.
What information they do reveal does not inspire confidence in their analysis: for example, read the latest IPCC report and see how many key causal factors have a "low" level of scientific understanding. (It's true that greenhouse gases are not in that category, but the fact that we understand them pretty well does not justify simply ignoring the other factors when we admittedly don't know enough to judge their impact.)
Also, the IPCC predictions for how much the climate should have warmed by now, given the actual increase in CO2 levels, have basically been falsified: CO2 has been increasing faster than all but their most pessimistic predictions, yet climate has been warming slower than their most optimistic predictions. So as far as deciding how to act, I don't trust the IPCC predictions, and since those are driving all the policy recommendations from those who are "terrified", I don't trust those recommendations either.
"critics should be proving that something else is causing the recent heat records."
No, the burden of proof is on those who want to implement highly disruptive policies without adequate justification.
Your statements create the implication that the Hal Lewis, the author of this piece, is being paid by someone to intentionally spread misinformation. Is this a misreading? For while he may be scientifically wrong, I wouldn't make this accusation lightly.
According to the article the last straw for him, was that he obtained 200 signatures from members of the APS (all scientists) asking for the creation of a group to look at Climate Science. These 200 presumably thought there was room or need for debate. Given your "few"/"many" construction, I have to wonder: how many of these were being paid off and by whom?
True of course, but I meant "does the fact that he is a physicist and not a climatologist affect the implication that he is being funded to spread disinformation?". The original article does not proclaim any particular theory on Global Warming. Rather, it criticizes the process by which science is being politicized. This strikes me as a matter for which any scientist should be allowed to speak.
I take offense at the notion that anyone who would want to question the process can be presumed to be acting out of pecuniary interest rather than a desire to find truth. So I ask again: Daniel, are you claiming that Hal Lewis and at least some of the 200 people who signed his petition are being paid to do so?
APS is an organization that publishes papers in the field of Physics. not "climatology" (which really sounds like astrology to me.) He is a physicist.
You may not be aware of it, but much of the relevant work in the area of the global climate is being done by Physicists. Not all, of course, but Physics is a pretty relevant field.
>By the time we know who was right, it'll be too late.
Only if Climate Change is correct, not if it isn't.
>critics should be proving that something else is causing the recent heat records.
Hal addresses that in his letter.
>or that some esoteric and uncontrollable phenomenon is responsible for some of the warming does nothing useful to help us decide how to act.
It does a great deal useful, in instructing us how not to act. Science is as much about process of elimination as anything, and eliminating hypotheses is one of the most valuable outcomes of scientific method.
The problem of induction comes into play here - thousands of confirming observations cannot prove a theory true, but one single refuting observation can disprove it. It could be rather embarrassing when governments have invested billions, and top scientists have based their lives and careers on, proving it true, and it were to turn out false due to a few refuting observations.
Another problem here is that too many people have worked themselves into a tizzy of thinking we must solve the problem immediately, even if our understanding of what exactly the problem is may not be accurate. Given the lack of full transparency, sloppy data handling in some cases, and what appears to be a biased, corrupted process, it's hard for interested lay people to trust the accuracy of our understanding.
Don't misunderstand, I personally think we're trashing our world and need to do something about it. When the Amazon Rain Forest is vanishing and there's an island of garbage the size of Texas drifting around in the northern Pacific, we've got clear, systemic problems that need to be solved.
And that's not to mention another extremely strong reason to transition away from fossil fuels - self reliance. Having to be constantly at war, either hot or cold, to protect the energy supplies that allow a modern economy to run is about the most undesirable political situation you could possibly have.
Trashing the world + self reliance should be enough justification for government to strongly incentivize solutions, without resorting to a complex, difficult-to-prove, scandal-plagued theory like AGW. And solving those clear problems may even have a side effect of mitigating AGW, if it is indeed correct.
> Only one credible climatologists is vehemently disagreeing with the consensus.
How is "credible" determined, and do statisticians familiar with their work generally feel the same way?
> The science of greenhouse gases was figured out in the 19th century. Given how much we're spewing into the atmosphere, critics should be proving that something else is causing the recent heat records.
If it was really that simple, I doubt there'd be much argument: "Measured increases in CO2 levels correspond to a change in atmospheric absorption from X% to Y% in Z wavelengths, which works out to W petawatts. This is P% of our energy budget, and requires a temperature increase of T to dump that energy through other wavelengths.".
But of course we also have to deal with clouds and water vapor, and the models rely on accurately guessing some ginormous amplification of any CO2 effects in what appears to be basically a chaotic systems, so...
> Merely pointing out that models aren't perfect predictors, or that some esoteric and uncontrollable phenomenon is responsible for some of the warming does nothing useful to help us decide how to act.
It says that we can't actually expect that things will be as different as the models are saying. When the entire reason for acting is that the models are saying we're basically doomed, this really is kinda relevant.
He's clearly very angry, I don't exactly blame him either.
The problem with the "climate change debate" is that it is a) political and b) full of bad science. The actual problem, of course, is that the bad science and the political happen, in this case, to agree.
To those decrying his strong assertions of fraud, I agree there is a little too much hyperbole in his resignation. However I think he is absolutely right that the money is skewing the science, as much as the politics.
What the scientists don't seem to understand is that a politician probably doesn't really care what happens in the future (so long as it does not happen in his/her lifetime) they are more interested in the political advantage it is offering. This is the same for pretty much any wide-scale "popular" crisis that occurs (e.g. the bird flu "pandemic").
And, so, we are in this weird situation where a very serious issue is facing us (well, facing us in a few generations) but most of the work seems to relate to arguing, using it to political advantage and scaring the public.
Rather than actually doing anything very much.
And the public have absolutely no idea what to believe, expect or do (except for some vague notion that maybe they should invest in a solar panel). The media have been handed the words "a scientific consensus" which confuses people even more, and means absolutely nothing. The media and the politicos have spun the whole thing into a mess of fear in the populace; who has this sense that there is a major urgency and we should be panicking. When clearly, that is a silly response.
The truth, sadly, is that nothing is at all clear at this point, apart from the fact we are seeing some form of, probably quite significant, climate change some portion of which is out fault. And only a developing sense of what to do about it and what it will lead to (environment wise). Anyone who claims to be able to predict the outcome, from this point on, with any degree of certainty I am quite happy to call a fraud. Ditto for anyone that claims conclusively to have shown the extent to which we are contributing.
We end up with two polarized camps; the "global-warmists" and the "deniers". And we are all supposed to take a side, choose our weapons and go for the throat. Which in itself detracts from sensible, logical ideas like self-sufficiency, less consumerism, clean energy, sustainable environments etc. (because they become part of the whole debate and no longer just a neat thing we could/should all do).
This makes me very cross (can you tell), but I have given up waffling about it too much (this post excluded) and simply invest in my own sustainability and remain healthily sceptical about any new GW science.
The actual problem, of course, is that the bad science and the political happen, in this case, to agree.
There will always be bad science to support an idea that is politically useful. The superficial quality of the science, its apparent professionalism, depends on the power and wealth that depend on the political idea. That is sufficient to explain the prestige and apparent professionalism behind global warming.
On the other hand, every issue has its cranks and skeptics, and whenever somebody stands to lose a lot of money because of an increase in human understanding, they will fight against it, demonize it, and cast doubt on it as effectively as possible. Cranks can tell a compelling story of the establishment's arrogant dismissal of them and refusal to engage intellectually, but their very unreasonableness creates the story. Sane, successful people exploit their position to marginalize cranks because debating with cranks on an intellectual level is a waste of time and effort. And the plum prize for a band of cranks is an aging genius of yesteryear, declining in his powers and feeling ignored and left behind by younger competitors.
On the other hand, "everything-fun-is-bad-for-you" hair shirt crowd has definitely moved on from Sex to Consumption, and they're joined with the "we-privileged-deserve-nothing-we-have" hair shirt crowd. Attacking our primary energy source is a game-ending strike for people who are against consumption, so you can count on their instant unexamined enthusiasm for the idea. (I'm one of these, though a lazy and indifferent one.)
On the other hand....
On the other hand, I'm never going to get anywhere reasoning like this.
simply invest in my own sustainability and remain healthily sceptical about any new GW science
A cop out, to be sure, but I can't come up with anything better.
Please call those who disagree with AGW theory "skeptics". The use of the word "deniers" is pejorative, and seems meant to imply they are "denying reality."
His use of the word "fraud" seems well supported considering the amount of scientific fraud that has gone on here, to such a degree that you, for instance, appear to be open minded but generally unaware of the evidence against AGW. (This is not a criticism of you, just using you as an example of the type of information that gets out.) Further, the actions in climategate, which involved adding an artificial factor to create warming, are fairly considered to be fraud. If this factor were known and the full data were presented to people, then it would be good science as it would be attempting to compensate--- but then I'm being very generous because I believe a fair assessment would show the factor is not based on science but based on a need to show warming.
Sorry, in case it is not clear I am personally sceptic of a lot of the global warming science [but not climate change, gladly there is at least solid factual information there]. I did deliberately put deniers in quotes :)
The fraud bit I was referring to other posts in this thread that were talking about monetary fraud. As I mentioned, I agree there is a lot of bad, often fraudulent, science going on in this field.
And yet, as a sceptic, I don't see why, for example, sustainable energy is a bad idea. Or why it is even part of the debate, rather than standing on its own merits :)
My position is that the initiation of force is immoral. So, if all the Venture Capitalists in Silicon Valley think that there is something going in the green energy sector and they want to pour a bunch of money into it, more power to them.
Unfortunately, I suspect that the recent popularity of this sector among them is more to due with the expectation of buckets of cash coming from government than seeing a viable economic model to exploit.
Viable economic models work to improve society, and they produce profits that turn around and can be invested in a variety of potentially viable technologies and economic models. It is a virtuous cycle.
So, in that context, I also am in favor of "sustainable energy" as well. I just have a problem with government sticking guns in people's faces, taking the money they would have used for their babies medicine and giving it to someone who created an politically favored business in order to get government money.
I'm not saying your position is any different, just that when government gets involved things get confused. People forget that there is a huge difference between VC money and government money.
Also, I apologize as it seems I misunderstood your use of the word "deniers".
>just that when government gets involved things get confused.
Agreed. Because the government is not really all that interested, at the end of the day, in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
> Also, I apologize as it seems I misunderstood your use of the word "deniers".
My fault. I used "global-warmists" instead of "alarmists" because the word slipped my mind. So it does look like I come down on one side of that sentence :)
"How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d'être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs."
I am glad that Prof. Lewis came out with this public exposure of the corruption of physics. This is very important. This is independent of climate issue. The most corruption occurs in academic physics.
Since this is a global warming related topic, we're seeing the very common global warming debate. I've a few points to make in defense of this ex-member of APS, and in response to the arguments that are so commonly presented for AGW.
Science does not operate by consensus. The consensus of scientists for many decades was that the earth was flat. as we well know, the earth is not flat. (But if you want to argue that the earth is, in fact flat, I'm willing to hear your arguments. What's the worst that could happen? I could be amused. But if I've been tricked by the Round Earth Scam then I'd want to know. It is silly to say it is beyond discussion simply because most people believe the earth is round.)
When I worked for a national lab I would, for amusements sake, take the position that Einstein was wrong, and I would argue against general relativity. I did this with Professors, Post Docs, both theoretical and empirical and a variety of people much smarter and better informed than me. This was educational and a good exercise. While I may have irritated them on occasions, and while general relativity is about as close as you get to "settled science", never once was the argument given to me that this was a correct theory based on the "consensus of scientists".
If you're arguing for a scientific position and you're using "preponderance of the evidence" in lawyer speak to make your position, you're not actually taking the scientific position, you are taking an anti-science position. The preponderance of the evidence will always fit a conventional view, and the advancement of science comes from finding something that does not fit the conventional view. This is what careers are (or were, apparently) made on.
So, the argument that this is "settled" and therefore is not worth debating and that anyone who doesn't subscribe to this theory is irrational, is a very profoundly anti-science perspective. It is also the defacto position and has been since I first heard of global warming. How can a scientific movement start out by presupposing its own conclusions as fact?
Further, if you do not wish to spend the time reading papers, or investigating the matter at a deep level, do not advocate for a position on the internet. This kind of advocation is the worst combination of politics and science. You're arguing for a scientific conclusion based on your political ideology, not based on science. (Which is why preponderance of evidence is convenient - it is an attempt to short circuit debate so you don't have to debate the scientific points.)
AGW is easily disproven with straightforward observations (not to mention a mountain of peer reviewed papers to the contrary, none of which can be effectively debated in this forum.) The easy disproof of AGW is:
1. The earth is getting colder, not warmer, while CO2 levels continue to rise.
2. Historically the earth has mostly been much colder and if you want to find a warming trend you will find the one since the last ice age, which has happened after every ice age.
3. During the period where the planet was getting warmer in the recent past, coinciding with the solar cycle, mars got warmer as well, yet mars has no humans on it.
4. The climate gate emails reveal deliberate distortion of the numbers by adding a "fudge factor" which accounts for essentially all the warming shown in that "baseline" data.
5. The only papers showing warming on a global scale are showing the results of computer models that do not have predictive value if you apply past data, thus they are predicated on the assumption that some major change in the global climate has been reached, with no historical precedent. EG: the models are not actually models.
6. The planet has experienced several periods that were much warmer and had much higher CO2. While CO2 and warming are correlated, the CO2 levels tend to come after the warming, not before. This whole thing could be called a correlation-causation error if it weren't being pushed so adamantly in the face of scientific disproof.
7. The AGW movement is a political movement, primarily centered around Al Gore and the IPCC Neither of which are scientific. The IPCC rewrote the statements of the scientists who contributed to the report because it felt they were not declarative enough. The motive here is pretty obvious, as if AGW were accepted, government would gain massive power to regulate the global economy and people everywhere, as has already been demonstrated by such travesties of economics and justice as "Cap and Trade".
8. When Al Gore started to harp on this issue it was a legitimate concern as he portrays in his movie, after meeting a UCSD professor who told him the theory. A decade later, in the 1980s the UCSD professor discovered his theory was wrong, and being a man of integrity, published his findings. Al Gore, being a man of no integrity continues to pretend like he didn't.
9. The IR absorption of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a significant impact on the planet and not able to cause a "Greenhouse" effect. CO2 in the atmosphere is a tiny fraction of a percent. IT is vastly outweighed by water vapor which has much more significant IR absorption and thus is the source of essentially all possible greenhouse effect. But Clouds are not something humans can control,and therefore, the AGW proponents focus on CO2.
10. AGW theory is based on the idea of some magical tipping point after which the effect will become run-away and beyond our control. The fear being spread is argued on this basis. However in the past, CO2 has been higher than it is today, and in fact has been dramatically higher than it is today, with no runaway effect. (Further, the planet has been much warmer than it is today, warmer than even the worst case scenarios being projected, and still went into subsequent ice ages.)
11. Numerous, possibly, every place where we should see this warming showing up, we are not. However, if you google for any of these you can find them used as evidence of warming, by either adding fudge factors or selectively citing data and ignoring the data that shows cooling. This shows a consistent and persistent fraud being perpetrated arguing for AGW, at least in the blogosphere. (Not going to make the allegation against scientists, I believe they are being honest, but they are working with fabricated baseline data that was at the center of climate-gate.)
I'm not going to cite any papers here because scientific reality does not come nicely summed up in a single paper making a specific point. Many of my claims are easily verifiable. eg: "As of April 2010, carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of 391 ppm by volume."
You can quibble with my words in the above statements and it is quite possible I spoke over broadly once or twice. But you can't change these basic facts about the situation. I know there are blog posts from non-scientists who "debunk" probably every thing stated above. If all you need to believe in something is for someone on the internet to have written a rationalization, no matter how ignorant or dishonest, then there is no convincing you against AGW.
But it really doesn't matter, even if you reject every one of my points. Science is not about consensus. Science is not about downvoting people who dare to point out facts not consistent with the popular theory.
Science is about applying the scientific method and following the data wherever it leads, not only if it follows a political agenda, or your source of fundings political agenda.
IF you downvote me, do so knowing that you cannot claim that I have not made an argument, have not contributed to this discussion, and have not presented evidence defending my position. I have done all three. Realize you are downvoting me because you do not like the conclusion I reached.
Science should not be about removing funding from people who discover inconvenient truths that go agains the political winds. Hacker news should not be about burying people who fail to march in lock step with popular opinion.
There was never a consensus of scientists that the earth was flat in any society within a hundred miles of the ocean, which incidentally is about all of them that can be said to have had scientists.
Biggest CO2 sink is the ocean. Increase CO2 content in ocean water and you produce carbonic acid. I'd assume that this is at least a contributor to ice melt.
However, you could contend that many of the northern waters are similarly contaminated by acid produced from volcanic gas, such as in the Icelandic area.
Either way, I can't source any documented evidence either way at the moment. The problem is that if you stipulate that scientists are colluding to produce evidence in support of a theory, all evidence supporting or denying said theory must be assumed contaminated unless proven otherwise. I have no access to the data, nor could I rule out scientific misconduct in the data collection even if I had access.
Mea culpa- I did not remember the document I read correctly. The carbonic acid references are usually a separate but related concern. As CO2 dissolves in water, it changes the pH balance, which is having a detrimental effect on sea life (esp. on the micro scale) in the area. This is more prevalent at the poles, due to CO2 more readily dissolving into cold water.
Fatal error: Out of memory (allocated 1572864) (tried to allocate 4864 bytes) in /home/thegwpf/public_html/libraries/joomla/html/parameter.php on line 146
Fatal error: Class declarations may not be nested in /home/thegwpf/public_html/libraries/joomla/error/exception.php on line 25
A quote: "I would like to ask two questions. First, if the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is allowed to continue, shall we arrive at a climate similar to the climate of six thousand years ago when the Sahara was wet? Second, if we could choose between the climate of today with a dry Sahara and the climate of six thousand years ago with a wet Sahara, should we prefer the climate of today? My second heresy answers yes to the first question and no to the second. It says that the warm climate of six thousand years ago with the wet Sahara is to be preferred, and that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may help to bring it back. I am not saying that this heresy is true. I am only saying that it will not do us any harm to think about it."
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html