I’m no scientist. Neither is Nobel Prize winning global warming alarmist and hypocrite Al Gore. Nor are the legions of global warming deniers who are pointing to a stretch of cold weather as “proof” that global warming is a myth.
We are, most of us, not qualified in any way, shape, or form to make any kind of technical or scientific judgment on most of the evidence relating to climate change unless we happen to hold an advanced technical degree and are able to examine that evidence in its totality and not pick and choose headlines that bolster one’s political position on the issue.
The idiocy inherent in the prospect of myself or 95% of internet commenters – right and left – trying to hold a scientific debate on a subject where almost all of us are not scientists and where most of the evidence is couched in the arcane and mysterious language of scientific disciplines for which the overwhelming majority of us barely realize the parameters of study is self evident.
Not that this matters because at bottom, we who are unable to examine the evidence on the same plane as climatologists, meteorologists, atmospheric physicists, environmental scientists, and a hodgepodge of chemists, archaeologists, anthropologists, and other scientists end up simply believing one side or the other. Like religious fanatics, the two sides argue dogma while rejecting the other’s “beliefs” as apostasy.
Considering the stakes, this is madness. And scientists are not helping matters any. Likening those who question the conclusion that global warming is caused largely by man and that it threatens civilization to Holocaust deniers is far beyond the pale of rational discourse. Similarly, those who use the term “climate Nazis” to describe global warming advocates have no place in this debate.
But because of the monumental importance of the issue, all of this matters little. Even though our opinions are half baked and ill informed, we scream at each other, accusing one side of being in the pocket of big business (or in thrall to the anti-science element in the Republican party) or the other side of blindly following a “scam” that seeks to destroy the American economy and promote a one world government.
Both sides have been guilty of laughable exaggerations. Every heat wave during the summer is trumpeted to the skies by warming advocates as “evidence” that the world is warming up. The ebbing of ice packs, glaciers, and snow pack on mountains, is fodder for the alarmists while every shred of evidence that might contradict the global warming scenario including core samples and faulty CO2 models becomes “proof” that global warming is a lie.
“Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way,†read a blog post and news release on Wednesday from Marc Morano, the communications director for the Republican minority on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.So what is happening?
According to a host of climate experts, including some who question the extent and risks of global warming, it is mostly good old-fashioned weather, along with a cold kick from the tropical Pacific Ocean, which is in its La Niña phase for a few more months, a year after it was in the opposite warm El Niño pattern.
If anything else is afoot — like some cooling related to sunspot cycles or slow shifts in ocean and atmospheric patterns that can influence temperatures — an array of scientists who have staked out differing positions on the overall threat from global warming agree that there is no way to pinpoint whether such a new force is at work.
And lest you think only one side can’t tell the difference between “climate” and “weather,” here’s an oldy but goody from 2003:
NBC Blames Global Warming for European Heat WaveIt was inevitable. Whenever someplace in the world gets hot for a few days, sooner or later a network story will blame it on global warming.
NBC’s Patricia Sabga won the contest on Wednesday night when she warned that “scientists attribute the extreme temperatures to what’s been described as a dome of hot air hovering over Europe, a summer weather pattern that may become the norm.†Sean Seabrook, identified on screen as a “meteorologist,†then asserted: “Scientists appreciate now that global warming is taking place and I think these occurrences of heat waves will become more frequent, so this may be a sign of things to come.â€
The climate is warming. This is indisputable. It has been warming since the end of the last ice age nearly 20,000 years ago. During that time we’ve had rapid warming spells that last centuries and cooling periods as well (the “Little Ice Age” in Europe from 1300-1800 had a huge impact on politics and society).
But overall, for this last post-ice age epoch the temperature has been rising. No one disputes this. The problem, of course, is the last 100 years or so of human industrial activity and the burning of fossile fuels. Many scientists see the “spike” in average temperature of .75 degrees C as directly related to the increase in CO2 emissions resulting from the burning of hydrocarbons. Others point to a peak of sunspot activity or ice core samples that show past rapid warming periods where there has been an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
I have no clue who has the upper hand in this debate. Flat statements like “global warming is real” or “global warming is a scam” mean nothing when each side is contradicted by sound scientific evidence. This despite efforts by some in the global warming crusade who seek to end debate on the issue for political, not scientific reasons by trying to postulate that there is a “consensus” that catastrophe is ahead unless we reduce our emissions.
Whoever heard of ending debate on a question of science when there is credible evidence that challenges what has become conventional wisdom? What reputable scientist would agree with this nonsense? No one knows or can accurately predict what the weather will be like 100 years from now. Models that attempt to show a correlation between specific levels of carbon dioxide and temperature have been shown to be useless. No one knows what effect increased temperatures will have in the future. No one even knows if reducing emissions will effect the rise in temperatures one iota.
Closing off debate on climate change is not a question of science but of politics.
It is inevitable that politics would dominate the global warming debate because the solution proposed – reducing emissions – impact ordinary people’s lives enormously, perhaps even catastrophically. For some, whose agenda includes what can only be interpreted as the downfall of the capitalist system, the climate change debate is secondary to imposing their ideas of socialism and reduced influence of the nation state. Others may see a loss of profit and influence unless global warming is “debunked.” And when the cost to the US economy is measured in the trillions of dollars to “play it safe” and proceed as if global warming is the calamitous threat some say it is, the arguments for and against take on an urgency the demands attention.
And then there is the vast bulk of ordinary citizens – you and me – who are caught somewhere in the middle, forced to try our best to understand the debate by reading flawed analysis of both sides in a scientifically ignorant media. Even those few general interest science publications that lay people can read and understand are usually tainted by bias for or against anthropogenic climate change.
In the end, we are left believing one side or the other based largely on our political leanings and not on our scientific acumen. In a way, I envy those who can follow the debate on a technical level and are able to keep the spark of scientific inquiry alive by listening to all sides in this debate and evaluating evidence based on the facts while leaving politics on the outside.
If the only thing you take away from reading this is to have a little more respect for those who don’t agree with you on global warming, I will be content. Because at the moment, speaking for myself, I just don’t know. And the price of ignorance – on both sides – may be too much for us to bear.
UPDATE: 3/6
I thought about doing this days ago but just never got around to it.
Those who say we shouldn’t only take the word of scientists on global warming are correct.
The problem is any 3 year old chimp can understand the conclusions drawn by various studies and models. But only scientists can examine the evidence those conclusions are based on and make a judgement as to their accuracy and efficacy.
Cooking the books of a statistical study on temperatures or overstating some key piece of evidence can only be discovered by those with the knowledge and training to do so. That is why all legitimate studies undergo peer review.
Anyone who relies solely on the conclusions reached by scientists without examining the evidence from where those conclusions came from is talking throught their hat and need not be taken seriously. That was my point that was poorly made that I am now clarifying.
10:12 am
I am a retired geologist with a Ph.D. I am skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. Here are first ten reasons why:
1. It has all the marks of a religion; skeptics are treated like heretics and the spokesman is a Baptist lay preacher.
2. Global warming is now called climate change so it can embrace global cooling, also.
3. It is anti-American since America is biggest producer of CO2.
4. I’ve been through this before in the 1970’s with Global Cooling.
5. As I geologist I know that climate changes take a long time since the earth has a very large thermal mass.
6. Humans have adapted to colder and warmer conditions. Manhattan’s average temperature has increased 7°F in the last 50 years but New Yorkers are not wilting.
7. The data for the earth’s temperature for more than 100 years in the past are very sparse and unreliable.
8. The data for the earth’s temperature for the last 100 years is not much better and practically all of it has to be compensated for the urban heat island effect, vide Manhattan.
9. Other measurements of the earth’s thermal condition, for example, shrinking growing season lengths, are not consistent with global warming.
10. Concomitance is not causation.
However, unless everything freezes solid and a continental glacier obliterates Washington, D.C., I’m afraid we’re stuck with it. Particularly, since there’s money to be made from it as Al Gore has clearly demonstrated.
11:46 am
Global warming is mostly real, but, it is primarily a naturally occurring event.
11:48 am
I’d like to commend you, Rick, for a very solid and reasonable analysis of the difficulties in this controversy. I hold an MS in physics and have read the IPCC reports and have a decent grasp of the science. For me, the compelling argument is that basic physics (sophomore level) clearly shows that, if you increase CO2 concentrations, the earth will warm up. However, I will not ask you or anybody to accept that argument, because ultimately you’re relying on my testimony—and nobody should ever accept the scientific opinions of any individual, no matter how much expertise that individual commands.
I do have an argument, however, that I think is compelling. My first suggestion is: block all the noise from the peanut gallery. Ignore Al Gore, people who comment on blogs (myself included!), bloggers, journalists, scientists quoted in the media, and so forth. Ultimately you have only two ways of resolving the dispute in your own mind:
1. Learn the science so that you can understand the issues and draw your own educated conclusions. That will take, at the very least, the equivalent of a BS degree in climate science, meteorology, or physics. That’s probably more effort than most people are willing to expend.
2. Find the most reliable source of objective scientific analysis and see what they have to say on the matter. Fortunately, the US Congress realized the need for such an organization about 140 years ago and so established the National Academy of Sciences, and charged it with providing the government with thorough assessments of politically significant scientific issues. Therefore, the NAS bears a relationship to science similar to the Supreme Court’s relationship to law: it is the final judge on scientific matters as they relate to political decision-making. However, there are a few differences between the NAS and the Supreme Court:
a. The Supreme Court has 9 judges; the NAS membership consists of hundreds of the most eminent scientists in the country, and it selects those whose expertise most closely matches the needs of any particular problem.
b. The Supreme Court has to resolve a case during its nine month term; the NAS takes as long as it needs to fully evaluate a question, and is constantly re-evaluating the evidence. Sometimes it takes years to render a decision.
c. The Supreme Court will render a final decision on a 5 to 4 vote. The NAS insists on a much higher degree of agreement among the members of its committees before publishing a report.
d. Over the course of its history, the Supreme Court has on a number of occasions issued decisions that are now generally regarded as just plain wrong. The NAS has never issued a report that was subsequently shown to be incorrect. Never. Not once.
Therefore, if you’re going to trust anybody, I suggest that you trust the NAS. And what have they said? You can find a quickie summary of their results (a bit dated) here:
http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-LOW.pdf
Some highlights of that summary:
“Changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities.” [this from a 2001 report]
“Warming will continue, but its impacts are difficult to project.”
“Climate change impacts will be uneven.”
As you can see, the NAS summary is really cautious. I strongly urge everybody to read it. There’s a lot more stuff on the NAS website, and my own opinion of the material published since that quickie summary was written is that it amounts to “It’s worse than we had thought.” The evidence just keeps mounting, the models keep getting better, and the projections look worse and worse. But don’t take my word for it—read the stuff yourself.
1:03 pm
I wish you would stop trying to be so damned reasonable. I’ve been freezing my ass off up here in New York since October. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to get back outside spray aerosol deodorant off my deck again for the afternoon.
2:41 pm
I think what frustrates me about the pro-warming argument is that despite their insistence on a scientific “proof,” they thenproceed to completely ignore the very principles of scientific inquiry, namely that the most central principle of science is the continual exploration of the issue. Even Newton’s Laws of Gravitation, one of the most central pieces of modern physics, have had to be revisited once Einstein and his scientific descendants came along. My point is that science is never settled, because we can always dig a little deeper, refine our model a little more, and get closer to real, mathematical “truth.” The current climatological models are no better for predicting climate than using a common magnifying glass would be for determining the structure of DNA. We simply do not have enough data, our model is not good enough, and we do not yet have a good enough understanding. To say that the science is “settled” is absolute drivel and reveals, as Mr. Moran states, a political, anti-capitalist goal, rather than a scientific one.
3:04 pm
So let me see, when we have hot weather that is evidence of anthropogenic global warming, but when we have cold weather, it not evidence of AGW. Makes sense, about much sense as Algore ever makes.
3:39 pm
I do not feel qualified, for the reasons mentioned in the post, to dispute the fact of global warming. It is foolhardy for anyone without expertise to say that the science isn’t there, and that the very idea of rising temperatures is a “scam”. But there are two separate issues here, (1) the fact that the Earth’s climate is getting warmer, and (2) the response and measures that a big chunk of the environmental movement (such as the Gore crowd) are asking us to take. It seems funny (and sad) to me that the same people who lament that “George W. Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to do x, y and z” are all too often the same people who use global warming as an excuse to push policies they support for different reasons altogether.
4:11 pm
Two comments, Rick
a) Follow the money trail. I would bet that 90+% of the people involved in the climate controversy have a financial stake in it one way or the other.
b) Given the incredible complexities of the earth’s atmosphere and its interactions, the only people who are anywhere near correct are those that say they do not have enough information to understand the phenomena, much less predict what will happen in the future.
5:03 pm
People might have noticed
1. Increases in CO2 occur AFTER the temperature increases. It’s on Al Gore’s chart. So how can a later event cause an earlier one?
2. According to NASA, 168 billion metric tons (BMT) of CO2 are deposited in the atmosphere. Nature adds 160 BMT; man, only 8 BMT (including 6 BMT from all fossil fuels).
3. If the arctic polar ice caps (which floats on the Arctic Ocean) were to melt this afternoon, it would have zero effect on sea level. Floating ice displaces its MASS in water. When it melts, the water still has the same mass.
4. Solar radiation warms the surface of the Earth. 30% of the energy is radiated back into the atmosphere. Very close to the surface, CH4 (methane) and five tri-atomic gasses (CO2, SO2, NO2, O3 and H2O) absorb some of this energy converting radiance into motion which heats the atmosphere. Water vapor, by far the most abundant and effective green house gas, is ignored by the computer models despite being 1,000 times more effective at warming than CO2.
5. Carbon dioxide is essential to life on Earth. Only oxygen and water are more important.
6. Science is about challenging and testing hypotheses. Nothing is ever settled.
There are other explanations for climate change including chaanges in earth’s motion, plate tectonics, solar activity and Volcanism. Personally, I am not convinced that CO2 is the culprit.
6:23 pm
While I accept your points, the problem is we are being driven to accept global warming as gospel and act on faith. The measures proposed in Europe to address global warming will reduce their economy significantly, and likely our own in the process. Our own biofuel boondoggle, compliments of President Bush, is playing out in the incredible inflation of food prices that will likely only accelerate as more agriculture is directed away from production for food and feed.
The bottom line is that we need to be demanding much more from the global warming enthusiasts in terms of proof to accept what could be an unnecessary cure coming at far too dear a cost. It is one thing to maintain an open mind on the issue. But neutrality in the face of the actions being forced upon us in response to global warming seem utterly suicidal. So in that regard, when I see evidence to the contrary on the global warming issue, I am quite concerned.
To give a more concrete example, I have no respect for those individuals seeking to have Polar bears declared endangered on the basis of computer models when, today, polar bears are at their highest count in fifty years. I cannot have respect for people who would push that argument. It completely defies logic, and its ramifications would be severe indeed.
Your position is nuanced, I realize. But it seems almost a criticism of those lay people who look to the evidence out there and trumpet that they are unconvinced.
I think that you are conflating two groups of people, Rick. It is one thing to respect people holding to the theory of global warming. It is another thing entirely to afford the same respect to those who have politicized it and are seeking to take extreme action using global warming as a justification. I think to afford them respect or even to afford them shrug our shoulders in the face of their actions is at our peril.
8:17 pm
Ross, just to continue the discussion (and writing as an amateur),
1. Not relevant. Both the scientific warming skeptics and the climate science mainstream players are doing science, not religion.
2. Not relevant. And global cooling is not being predicted by the climate science mainstream.
3. Not true or barely true. China has by some counts surpassed the US including CO2 from cement production; by other counts they will surpass the US in 2008 or 2009.
4. The models and science in the 1970s were very primitive compared with current climate change science.
5. (rhetorically) Then why seasons in middle/high latitudes?
6. True, humans adapt. Air conditioning helps for those that can afford (CFC-less) AC and the power to operate it.
7. Can’t argue with this – though proxies for temperature can’t be ignored.
8. I don’t know enough to address temperature measurements in the last 100 years. The plant hardiness zone changes suggest that for the US at least, heat islands are not a major explanation.
9. Shrinking growing season? source?
10. Concomitance is suggestive, though.
8:53 pm
“Even those few general interest science publications that lay people can read and understand are usually tainted by bias for or against anthropogenic climate change”
Scientific American, Science and Nature are all be biased in favor of anthropogenic climate change? If this is the case how does the average intelligent American who is not a climate scientist form their own conclusion about public policy on climate related issues?
9:58 pm
climate change is a fact of existence on the earth, from jungles in Antarctica to ice ages covering North America. these are not just opinions they are proven from the geological record. as for global warming/cooling, we ought to first look at the effects of the sun and the planet’s winds, which work on cycles and affect change with much more rigor than the rise in co2 caused by humans.
and
yes, global warming is happening and even though gore and his alarmists are using it for their fame, at least with their putting it out there as an issue, maybe just maybe we can start thinking about improving the way we treat the planet and thus our fellow man and future descendants. i mean really does anyone remember when we were such pigs that whole towns were closed down (love canal) and rivers were on fire (cuyahoga). semantics are semantics and maybe you don’t have kids or family, but you should at least have some form of self-preservation.
keep up the good fight rick.
10:15 pm
There is no historical data that supports the premise that human activity has any significant effect on climate. The observation of glaciers melting may look dramatic on TV but does not show that human activity is the cause. There is, however, substantial evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide level does not significantly influence climate. You can check the global warming issue out yourself. Credible websites are included in my post at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/perspectives.html
11:44 pm
Ross,
Nice comment and couldn’t agree more with one exception. #3—think China recently surpassed the US in CO2 output.
Rick,
Interesting post but I think when the adherents to AGW are proscribing draconian measures (returning our economy to an agrarian model-for starters) to combat their bugaboo, the burden of proof is decidedly on them. A simple cost-benefit analysis of Kyoto might be in order. For something like a tenth of the costs associated with that UN boondoggle, we could bring potable water to the entire third world and wipe out malaria and a host of other diseases.
They don’t want to do those things, however. Why? I would submit that it is not the goal of these AGW fearmongers to improve the plight of the third, or first for that matter, world. The goal is to bring the evil US to heel under the boot of a global carbon-cop run out of the UN.
It essentially comes down to redistribution of wealth. That is the end goal. AGW (along with various schemes like cap and trade) is merely the means. And the ends truly do justify the means for the watermelon Gore acolytes.
I realize this sort of view doesn’t sit well in Manhattan coffee shops or Hollywood production lots but it is empirically true. Science is about repeatable results not threatening anyone who challenges a dissenting view as an apostate. That is more the hallmark of extreme religious doctrine.
The science is not settled for if it were, then people like Gore wouldn’t be afraid to debate and defend their theories. Nor would they be forced to propagate doomsday porn in an effort to whip up hysteria on the part of the masses.
There is one serious way to reduce oil dependency and simultaneously CO2 emmissions—nuclear power. It’s good enough for France but not for Al Gore and Hollywood. Again, why? Could it be that a solution is not what is being sought? Perish the thought. The political left would never want to keep an issue around to demagogue.
When Arianna and Leonardo forego their private jets then I’ll consider climbing out of my SUV. When Al Gore chooses to debate the issue honestly and in good faith, I’ll climb onto my roof and install solar panels. Barring either of these unlikely events, pardon me for hitting the snooze button everytime these alarmists spout off.
Regards,
Chris
12:14 am
WITH a dissenting view. Jeez.
1:26 am
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Diminishes+Researchers+Predict+Another+Ice+Age/article10630.htm
Here are two articles from the dailytech website.
6:55 am
“If the only thing you take away from reading this is to have a little more respect for those who don’t agree with you on global warming,”
When there can be a reaosnable debate I do try to render respect, when I have found myself the sole voice on one side of the fence in a seminar, and “debate” consist of shouting me down and trying to silence me, I don’t bother anymore
8:08 am
What raises my hackles is the authoritarian bent of the GW believers. They KNOW they have the answers and they KNOW that you should shut up and comply.
It is scary.
There is nothing voluntary about any of the “solutions” that they support.They’re talking about passing laws, issuing mandates and fining or arresting those who do not comply.
Not exactly what I would consider consistent with American values
8:21 am
Is it OK if I just have no respect for any of the fanatics on both sides?
Works for me.
8:47 am
blindly following a “scamâ€
If this we’re the real goal of the “other” side, this would all be easy to resolve. Rather, the truth involves lots of self-interest (i.e. federal funding for research). Just like a bunch of teenie-boopers, the research community has fads as well. Awarding for federal grants goes to those who can exhibit the “greatest impact” in showing that federal grant money is useful, therefore there is a need for more money. In business this is usually referred to as “building fiefdoms”.
9:17 am
[...] I posted a comment to the same effect over at Patterico’s on the original post, but I’ll copy it here as well. Patterico links to Rick Moran on the Global Warming debate. I’m no scientist. Neither is Nobel Prize winning global warming alarmist and hypocrite Al Gore. Nor are the legions of global warming deniers who are pointing to a stretch of cold weather as “proof†that global warming is a myth. [...]
9:42 am
I love the broad brush commentators on this blog use against the people who think differently than they do.
I believe global warming may be a possibility. I am not a scientist (as Rick will attest to) but I try to understand the debate. I am not in favor of shutting down the economy. I do not want to tell people to stop doing fill-in-the-blank. But it seems to me it would make sense to do a couple of things JUST IN CASE the global warming advocates are right:
1. Find a different way to power cars, and not biofuel. I’m not even talking about planes or, the worst offender, ships.
2. Either find another way to power houses or clean the emissions better that we do now. The technology is out there now; find a way to efficiently make it.
Do these things and you receive two benefits:
1. Create a new sector of the economy we might actually be able to export.
2. Increase national security by not depending on people who don’t like us in the first place.
It seems to me that each side has this incredible need to be right, when all we really need to be is reasonable
10:45 am
I am disappointed but entirely unsurprised by the many comments here that reject the scientific conclusions of so many scientists. I am reluctant to get into a point-by-point rebuttal because I have learned the hard way that arguing science with a non-scientist is a waste of time—because they really don’t care about the science, they just grab talking points from the Internet.
But I would like to drive home this point:
Render unto science the things that are science’s, and unto politics the things that are political.
This has two implications for the climate change debate. First, we should not respect any non-scientific opinion on scientific matters. Or, to put it the other way, the only scientific opinions worthy of our considerations are those of professional scientists. I am disturbed by the advance of anti-rationalism in our culture, the willingness people have to reject scientific conclusions for political or religious reasons. Creationists reject Darwinism for religious, not scientific reasons. Some leftists reject nuclear power technology for political, not scientific reasons. Right wingers reject climate change science for political, not scientific reasons. Many left-wingers reject evolutionary psychology for political, not scientific reasons. The assault on science is coming from all sides, and I warn the readers, if you contribute to this assault, then don’t complain when people on the other side of the political spectrum use exactly the same tactics to promulgate false claims.
We are faced with increasingly complex problems, many involving complex science, and if we impose our personal political or religious beliefs upon scientific conclusions, then we will fail to address those problems effectively, and we will fail as a civilization. Or, to put into a sound-bite: admit reality or die.
The second implication of my “render unto” aphorism is that science and policy are two completely different things. Let’s be honest here: conservatives reject climate science only because they don’t approve of the policy proposals offered to address the problem. In other words, because they don’t like the solutions, they deny the problem. This is nonsense! Intellectual integrity demands that you confine your objections to what you find objectionable. If you don’t like the policy proposals, argue against those. Don’t deny the science because you don’t like the policy. You have a sound case that some of the policy options are expensive. Argue the case where you’re strong, not where you’re weak.
11:33 am
I understand Mayan priests used environmental scare tactics to fool worshippers into turning over their virgins; if they didn’t please the gods, volcanos and hurricanes would destroy homes and crops.
As for new sources of energy to fuel modern civilization’s survival I’m ready to go nuclear on severe environmental restrictions and ridiculous fads. I’d like to advance a little further in creating energy sources other than no drilling in anwar, higher CAFE standards and requiring everyone use mercury-filled light blubs.
11:53 am
I am over 50, am not a scientist but certainly a skeptic of man made global warming. I can remember in the mid 70’s reading article after article on the coming ice age, the population explosion, and peak oil. Man was doomed – unless we adopted some collectivist agenda.
Today’s global warming is the same package – different wrapper. Don’t need a scientist or meteoroligist to clear that up for me.
3:49 pm
There has been mention of models being used to predict the effects of climate change and to predict the levels the AGW adherents would have us believe. I am an Environmental Analyst and I work in areas that require the use of analytical models (Noise, Air Quality and Transportation Analysis). I use these models on a daily basis to predict the result of various actions within the environment. Before a model can be used for predictive analysis, that model must first be validated. That process requires a series of demonstrable simulations, running the model, and then verifying the results as consistent with the real situation. In fact, that very process is used to build the models. Correcting the algorythms within the model as you go. Simulation, runtime, assessment – compare and revise the basic algorythm, then do it again. And you do it until it is reliably efficient regardless of the situation. The models currently in use for the prupose of predicting future climate assessments have yet to pass a single validation.
How can they, you ask. We can’t know the future to see if they are right or wrong. You are right – but we do know the past. For example: Take all the data we have for 1900-1950. Plug that into the model and see what you can predict for the year 1970, 1980, 2000. Not one single climatoloical model has been able to do that. Not one. Why? I don’t know. But it seems to me that if CO2 and other “greenhouse” gases are the culprits the validation of these models should be easy. But they aren’t and they have yet to be validated, verified, certified or anything else ‘ied.
Now don’t get me wrong – I am not a climate change “Denier” in any way. In fact, just the opposite – I know that the climate changes. Period. I just don’t see the evidence as reliable that Man alone is the culprit. Has man injected harmful crap into the atmosphere – yes and I am all for “clean air” but to take it to the extreme that Man is the causation of Climate Change and all we gotta do is “fix man” has not been proven to my satisfaction in any way.
4:37 pm
I do admire the intent of your post. One thing that makes me mad is to be stampeeded into some expensive steps with only the word of a non-scientist to go by, one that will profit from it at that.
There are also affidavits from whole groups (hundreds of members each, in fact) of scientists going both ways, with the majority jumping on the bandwagon, since it seems that most are looking for tenure or research grants. This is not a voting situation, however. Some scientists are more likely to be right than others; the trick is to recognize which ones—certainly not the loudest.
Interestingly, many of the older and more established scientists seem to think GW is simply a natural cycle, and there isn’t much we can do about it. Stemming some percent of the 4% of CO2 in the atmosphere is not very practical, and may well be masked by other phenomena anyway, such as sun/cloud effects, they say.
Some scientists point to the historical fact that when the majority of scientists agree on a theory they are mostly found wrong, and especially so when there is a strong school opposed—- A. N. Whitehead.
It is perhaps unfortunate, but our nation is not run by scientists, but rather by politicians and wonks. It is these politicians that must decide who is right, and what to do. The scientists, all several thousands of them, need to come up with proofs and solutions, not votes, declarations and harrangues. This they have not as yet done adequately in my opinion.
Which leaves me in exactly the same place as Rick, standing on a pinnicle and afraid to take a step in any direction, especially not to spend and spend and spend…on the whims of bad scientists, bad science, and greedy politicians.
4:53 pm
SSheill asserts that none of the existing climate models are able to postdict accurately. That is not true. There’s voluminous evidence in support of the overall utility of climatological models; I ask SSheill to specify which models he believes cannot accurately postdict and to further specify the magnitude of the postdiction error generated by that model.
5:08 pm
From “War Against the Weak”, by Ed Black
In the first three decades of the 20th Century, American corporate philanthropy combined with prestigious academic fraud to create the pseudoscience eugenics that institutionalized race politics as national policy. The goal: create a superior, white, Nordic race and obliterate the viability of everyone else.
How? By identifying so-called “defective” family trees and subjecting them to legislated segregation and sterilization programs. The victims: poor people, brown-haired white people, African Americans, immigrants, Indians, Eastern European Jews, the infirm and really anyone classified outside the superior genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists. The main culprits were the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune, in league with America’s most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Harvard, Yale and Princeton, operating out of a complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island. The eugenic network worked in tandem with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the State Department and numerous state governmental bodies and legislatures throughout the country, and even the U.S. Supreme Court. They were all bent on breeding a eugenically superior race, just as agronomists would breed better strains of corn. The plan was to wipe away the reproductive capability of the weak and inferior.
Ultimately, 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized — legally and extra-legally. Many never discovered the truth until decades later. Those who actively supported eugenics include America’s most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Perhaps we should be wary of scientists with power.
6:27 pm
Oleo – You state “There’s voluminous evidence in support of the overall utility of climatological models.” I did not state there wasn’t utility in these models – as an example, the National Weather Service uses them to good effect with Hurricane forecasting and such. But even these only provide the percentages, possible alternatives, trend and risk analysis – not answers.
There has been some progress made in Regional and Short-term Climatological Models but even they still have nagging issues associated with them, such as predicting radical events such as droughts (UK Regional Model recently validated but with exceptions) and extreme inclement weather cycles (some of the National Weather Service models). But the major long term models used for projecting 50 and 100 year world wide cycles have yet to be validated.
When faced with this same issue within our legal system, the courts require validation. On more than one occasion I have had to defend the analysis I had performed for an Environmental Impact Statement to a court, the rationale for using the specific model(s) and the model’s validation information.
I only ask the same of you. I am not being a contrarian here. It is a standard that I have to live by in my own world and only ask you the same. You say there is evidence to the contrary, Good. Show me the validation of a single long-term global model.
9:38 pm
Global warming/climate change: yes there are cycles, and yes I believe man can have an influence to an extent which may be hard to quantify. For me the question is, will Jesus arrive in time to pull our nuts out of the fire, or is he already here picking broccoli, mowing our lawns and just too otherwise pre-occupied to notice?
10:37 pm
Too funny.
“Render unto science the things that are science’s, and unto politics the things that are political.”
Somebody needs to wake noted theologian/scientist and nobel prize winner, Algore. Are you freaking kidding me? You are arguing that because I am not a scientist, even though I’ve taken advanced physics and chemistry, that I have no right to weigh in on this debate? And I must submit to the will of divinity school drop-out Algore? Send in the freaking clowns. If this is the best argument the pro-AGW side can muster then we’re almost through with the nonsense.
11:52 pm
Syn said:
“As for new sources of energy to fuel modern civilization’s survival I’m ready to go nuclear on severe environmental restrictions and ridiculous fads. I’d like to advance a little further in creating energy sources other than no drilling in anwar, higher CAFE standards and requiring everyone use mercury-filled light blubs.”
You know nothing about the light bulbs. The amount of mercury is the size of a microdot. You’d need a few hundred light bulbs to equal the amount of mercury in a thermometer. Why does taking some environmental friendly measures scare you so much?
12:57 am
[...] CLIMATE CHANGE? OR JUST A STRETCH OF BAD WEATHER? [...]
4:51 pm
Comment #31 continued:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the World meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and was tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. Their 2001 report stated:
In Climate Research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the ong-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” (IPCC-TAR, 2001, page 774)
This finding has not changed in the intervening years. And yet these very same climate models are used to this day for long term predictions.
Some of the major problems inherent in these models are:
They do not consider observed solar dimming and post-1985 brightening
They do not take account the existance of water vapor dimmers
They do not accurately model the role of clouds
In fact they do not deal with the one single major factor in climate change, water vapor, at all. And yet these models are cited with feverish regularity their predictions of the gloom and doom of climate change.
10:48 pm
SShiell—good post. It accords with my understanding of the position of my friends at T.J Watson Research Labs.
Why are people so eager to draw trend lines on data that is corrupted or deficient? Perhaps to buttress an argument that isn’t quite firm?
3:26 am
[...] A comment by a retired geology Ph.D. on this well-considered piece on the irrationality of the climate change debate (from the felicitously named Rightwing Nuthouse) lists ten more reasons to be skeptical of anthropogenic global warming: [...]
10:50 am
Oecolampadius,
As others have suggested, the “leave it to the scientists, and especially the brights at the NAS” argument is ridiculous. I am a scientist at a large university, and I know many, many scientists, including NAS members. They are no more rational or reasonable than the guy who fixed my water heater. They are motivated by money, ego, political agendas, lab space, undergrad girls (the guys), university policies to whine about (the women, in order to get bigger pay raises), etc, and many of them are such utter fools I would not want them making decisions about when the cat box should emptied, much less social/political policy. These brights are prone to rejecting manuscripts that conflict with their research programs, rejecting grant proposals that might fund competing research, etc. They are not sources of wisdom or even reliable data. Leave unto scientists; sheesh.
7:45 am
Think locally. Act locally. Govern locally.
Everything else results in tyranny.
People protecting their own property will save the planet.
Politicians protecting their own asses will not. Ever.