What The Caine Mutiny Can Teach Us about Global Warming Scientists
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is justified via argument from authority: a consensus of “experts” holds that humans are responsible for the increase in the Earth’s average temperature during the twentieth century.
I was once a leader in forming a scientific consensus. In the late 1970s, most cosmologists believed the universe could not accelerate. Our experimental evidence for this belief was very weak, so we appealed to “expert opinion.” In the late 1990s, we discovered dark energy, the stuff that is accelerating the universe, and I now regard “scientific consensus” as a synonym for “wrong.” But at least we “experts” in this wrong cosmological consensus had genuine accomplishments in cosmology, unrelated to our wrong opinion on dark energy, to justify the claim that we were in fact “experts.”
I am struck by the lack of similar accomplishments by the leaders of the AGW “consensus.” In fact, it is the leading opponents of AGW who have genuine scientific achievements in the field of climatology. Last year, Reid Bryson, the “father of climatology,” and a leading AGW skeptic, passed away. Bryson’s actual achievements are the hallmark of a genuine scientist as opposed to the work done by AGW advocates.
A true scientist demonstrates his knowledge by using it to make predictions which can be confirmed or refuted. Bryson successfully predicted, in December 1944, that the so-called “Caine Mutiny Typhoon” would hit Adm. William Halsey’s Third Fleet. This storm was so-named because the novel The Caine Mutiny was based on what happened to the Fleet when it was struck by the typhoon. The novel won the Pulitzer Prize and was later made into a movie starring Humphrey Bogart.
Reid Bryson later wrote of his experience with the Caine Mutiny Typhoon in the October 2000 issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. From weather reports, he realized that a typhoon had formed and a trough of low pressure could cause it to curve toward the Third Fleet. He ordered up a reconnaissance aircraft, which located the storm’s eye, and estimated that the surface wind speed was a very strong 140 knots. Bryson radioed this observational data to Fleet Weather Central at Pearl Harbor, who responded with “we don’t believe you.” The Third Fleet did not receive Bryson’s warning. The typhoon hit the fleet, sinking four ships and killing nearly 800 men.
This was not Bryson’s first experience with meteorologists who disdained scientific evidence for their own gut feeling. In August of 1943, Bryson was stationed at Fleet Weather Central. He was asked to make a weather prediction for Marcus Island, where a carrier-based air strike was scheduled for August 23. Applying standard physics to the data available to him, Bryson concluded that a typhoon that Fleet Weather Central had been monitoring would curve and hit the U.S. task force as it was launching its strike. Bryson recalls that the senior meteorologist at Pearl said, “Nonsense! Typhoons don’t curve. Change that forecast.”
Unfortunately, failed predictions have never been persuasive evidence when faced with the unconditional love of a theory.
Busted forecasts are always explained away when the theory is just too beautiful or too desirable to abandon. Ask any Freudian or homeopathist, for example, if he is ready to give up.
Before the discovery of dark matter, knowing a cosmologist’s views on acceleration would not tell you much about his politics, which is why when the new observations came in, most changed their mind about the truth of the old theory.
But knowing a climatologist’s views on AGW tells you loads about his politics. The stronger the proponent, the more political his statements, the less he is interested in talking about failed predictions, and the more beautiful the theory is to him. As an example, see James Hansen’s recent oddity in Sunday’s Guardian (the link is above).
Let me get this straight then; you mean the sky isn’t falling?
It must also be noted RE Admiral Halsey that he won the Guadalcanal campaign after it had nearly been lost several times by other officers whose academic accomplishments, however impeccable, did not prevent them from making bad decisions in actual combat. Such as attempting to use battleship tactics with light and heavy cruisers at Tassafaronga. The theory was supposedly sound (the officer in question being a Naval War College issue), but when it was tried for real, the results were catastrophic.
The Murphy’s rule that goes “When the facts conflict with the theory, the facts must be disposed of” has no legitimate place in the real world. Unfortunately, that doesn’t stop people from trying to apply it to same.
clear ether
eon
I agree with most of Mr. Tiplers post.
The only problem I have is with California and the land of OZ down under.
We should know by now that Australia has suffered several brutal years of dry weather.
Temperatures in some areas have hit 120 degrees,
possible effects of El Nino or whatever,
I am not a meteorologist.
My problem is the certifiable insane environmental policies that refuse to allow citizens to clean up matchplay underbrush beside their homes and out buildings.
Radical environment polices in California and Australia have caused both places to burn and put more carbon into the air than all the vehicles ever invented on 8 planets.
Talk about your Global Warming?
Also killing tens of millions of small animals the environmentalist swear they are trying to protect.
If we continue to allow environmental policies to place downed trees and underbrush all over the world,
We wont need Global Warming to burn the planet.
We will have our own built in furnace.
Evil thought:
Maybe we should tie a few radical environmentalist to some of the downed dry rotted trees they love so much.
They are so cold hearted I doubt they would burn.
I don’t know climatology or meteorology. I find myself hoping, in a way, that global warming is true, because the alternative is to accept that the entire world scientific community has become totally politically compliant.
However, questions of truth or falsehood aside, the “science” of global warming matters nothing to rank and file believers. For all of the activists out there, who very rarely have degrees in anything more rigorous than whatever-it-is-they-are-angry-about “studies”, it is in all truth a secularized version of apocalyptic religion.
To these people, who eagerly anticipate our collective “burning for our sins” as much as any Islamist or Christian zealot, even bad science is wholly irrelevant.
Let’s get to the heart of the matter right up front- Prof. Tipler says : “But where did Einstein go to school? Who cares?” Indeed, good question. So, why does the tagline on this PJM article have to include ” Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University”, right? After, who cares about the author of this article? (For those who may not be aware, Prof. Tipler’s short bio is available at wikipedia.)
The title of this article is very misleading. First of all, Tipler does not define who the ” Global Warming Scientists” to whom he is referring are. Climatologists (who overwhelming support the notion that humans are indeed influencing the climate)? All people who are working in the Earth-sciences, most of whom agree that man is affecting the climate (and the biosphere in other ways)? Perhaps all the major professional scientific bodies (which are relevant to the topic), all of which (in the English language world anyway, that I can find) have statements affirming the scientific validity of human induced climate change?
If Professor Tipler is so sure the “experts” (as he calls them) are so wrong, why does he not contribute to the field of climatology to assist those whom he thinks have gone astray? Rather than contributing to the science, Prof. Tipler prefers to throw darts at those who doing the actual work (which he has done in the past to another field too, economics.)
What makes this essay even more absurd is the claim near the end: Tipler writes ” What counter-intuitive predictions have the Global Warmers ever made?” What does this have to do with any sense of goodness, correctness, or applicability in science? Just because on occasion a scientific theory may propose a counter-intuitive prediction does not mean all theories have to do such! I’m tempted to call Prof. Tipler’s statements about counter-intuitiveness straw-men, but perhaps they would best be ascribed as red herrings. Furthermore, his accusation about cover-ups is given without proof, and with no comparison to the greater body of scientific work (in climatology) and the history of “predictions” in science, the role of verifying such predictions, and what is learned by the whole process.
What I take away from Tipler’s essay is that he is hiding ideology underneath a story about a hurricane. Perhaps his disclosure of his father’s connection with the Admiral in the story is an indication to some latent hostility. Nevertheless, in this essay Prof Tipler:
1. Did not discuss any actual science related to AGW, theories or data.
2. Did not review the history of climatology, or AGW.
3. Did not show a necessary relevance between the (according to his history) misdeeds of a few meteorologists and the current scientific work on AGW as documented in very many published papers around the world.
And there is one more thing; Prof. Tipler has spent the last several years publishing books attempting to prove either the existence of God, or at least the existence of some characteristic of God such as Trinitarianism, through some extension of physics. Regardless of his success or lack of it in that field, there is something very un-Christian about this essay – it is called “bearing false witness.” By indirectly accusing all scientists (who believe in AGW) are lying (“The fleet meteorologists, like “scientists” who believe in AGW, were covering up failed past predictions”), Frank Tipler is bearing false witness.
Freetoken:
Let me help. For the last three years global warming supporters have predicted record high planetary temperatures and have been way off. They have predicted shrinking icecaps and have been wrong. They have predicted rising ocean temperatures and have been wrong.
A majoritiy of actual climatologists do not support AGW theory.
freetoken: Prof. Tipler’s point remains: let’s see any prediction based on AGW theory unquestionably verified by experience. (Let’s start with the recent snows in London. . .)
What I am wondering is what the experts have to say about record arctic ice cover and a decade of cooler temperatures. They good at automatically connecting causally, without evidence and after the fact, observed phenomena (wild fires, changing ocean currents, severe hurricanes etc) with AGW but where are the predictions?
The models used by the AGW shriekers cannot predict the climate when fed with actual data. Until this is done and survives peer review, AGW is nothing more than the opinion of hustlers.
…And how do the proponants of AGW explain situations like Mars, where the average temp has gone up but, quite obviously with the exception of a half-dozen solar-powered exploration craft, there has been no human influence on the environment?
Sounds to me like something larger than man is effecting our climate, just as it always has since before man evolved.
freetoken: the suggestion that a theory should provide a counterintuitive prediction is not a hard requirement, but rather an indicator that the theory provides some level of unique insight. Provision of a unique insight is generally linked to the significance of the theory. For example, General Relativity predicted that light would be bent by the gravitational field of a massive object. That was highly counterintuitive at the time (still is to many people) and indicated that Einstein may have achieved a significantly greater understanding of that bit of physics than anyone else. However, his model of gravitation was not broadly accepted until it had been verified by experimental evidence.
Therein lies the problem with AGW models. The predictions that they have made correctly (or semi-correctly) are not significant. The planet is warming? Sure. It’s done that before, many times; it has been generally warming since the end of the last major ice age 10,000 years ago and the current warming trend began over a century ago at the end of the Little Ice Age. The predictions that they have made that have been falsified (shown to be false) are many. Aside from those cited earlier in this thread the incorrect prediction regarding the relative rates of warming between the upper and lower atmospheres is particularly grievous. That failure shows a clear lack of understanding in the models of the role of atmospheric moisture. Water vapor is actually a vastly more important greenhouse gas than CO2. If they don’t get that right, the models cannot be right.
Some time back, I worked on research vessels that deployed buoys on the equator for climate monitoring. One of my duties was to plan the deployments, which required determining set and drift over 6 or 8 hours as we laid out the cable before dropping the anchor. We’d recover the old buoy the evening before then deploy in the morning. Monitoring the ship’s set and drift as well as using the Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler, I noticed that the currents I planned for the previous evening were not there in the AM. I pointed this out the PhD and MS oceanographers aboard since I’d never heard mention of a diurnal nature in Equatorial currents. All but one emphatically told me that there was no diurnal nature in direct opposition to the sensor in front of them and the actual real world movement of the ship. The one was happy to have found someone else who didn’t deny the facts before them.
This was not the first time I’d had the “scientists” refuse reality but it was disorientating to have so many science types, so ardently deny what was before their lying eyes. I was aided greatly by my own real science education in physics where I predicted the drift of the ship taking into account the diurnal changes and ended up where I expected. For the curious, the “official” equatorial current would reassert itself a couple of hours prior to local apparent noon. Building my current model with these real world details, I achieved very good accuracy on dozens of deployments.
“What counter-intuitive predictions have the Global Warmers ever made?”
Great question!
1. The cooling of the upper stratosphere in response to an enhanced greenhouse effect.
2. Hansen’s 1988 paper predicted warming–and smashes a naive forecast.
3. Increased night-time and winter temperatures.
4. The cooling associated with volcanic eruptions (See Mt. Pinatubo).
5. The behavior of water vapor in response to volcanic eruptions.
6. The sign and degree of change in absolute humidity in a warming world.
Hope that clears up a few things for you.
The single AGW supporter here, freetoken, used as his argument an attack on the author. Apparently flunking debate as well as science.
Admit you’re wrong about anthropogenic global warming and your funding disappears. It’s as simple as that. The scientific “consensus” really is, AGW is a gold mine that should not — must not — be abandoned, regardless of how much damage is done to the scientific method and the credibility of science in the eyes of the public. Most people already think it’s all a crock, the exception being those politicians and scientists who have a stake in the hoax being successfully pulled off.
AGW advocates cause untold woes in believing households. To wit: Sunday’s Washington Post magazine. Its cover story:
“Can one small household help save the planet from Global Warming?”
What an airhead question. For the correct answer is: Of course not, so wise up.
Saving the planet might possibly involve destroying an incoming asteroid before it gets here, or containing a terrible spreading disease, or some such.
Global warming or cooling is beyond our pay grade. To wit: We can’t influence how many or few spots the sun will get anytime soon, so we’re at its mercy as to the climate, and always have been. Ignore that fact and you are susceptible to every nutty idea that comes along, like changing light bulbs.
Do humor the concerned housewife who wants to feel important by doing SOMETHING trendy and helpful. And if she feels good about using less TP, then by all means applaud the effort.
But don’t bother her with real, unpleasant facts. For over in Africa and North Korea, you know there are several families, for every one of those like hers, that cook every meal with wood or dung fires and overwhelm her best CO2-cutting efforts.
We should count our blessings and help improve the lots of the unfortunates in this world. But cooling it? Don’t be ridiculous.
Dr. Tipler, if you’re ever spent any time at realclimate.org (the EDF-funded AGW cheerleading website manned by Jim Hanson’s crew at NASA, supposedly in their “spare time”), you’ll know that the malfeasance runs much deeper. They are, to put it bluntly, a propaganda operation masquerading as a science information website.
There’s no limit to how convoluted the spin will get. The narrative must be protected at all costs. Physics is no object, and Hansen’s operation has been caught cooking the books on the empirical data more than once.
Boris:
Hansen is a scientific fraud who has been caught manipulating his data. He is a reincarnation of the Soviet agronmist T.D. Lysenko.
Why, of course he has. So why aren’t you guys suing him?
14. Boris wrote:
Hope that clears up a few things for you.
Peter asks: And what are your credentials, exactly?
…Besides being a blind follower of the Goricle?
I just hope I live long enough to watch all these AGW loving scientists eat their words (and with no carbon emission!)
Freetoken,
You are correct that many scientists and scientific organizations have put their stamp of approval on AGW theory.
But…
When you really examine the questionable underlying data, the bizarre statistical methodologies, the papers that reference papers from the same authors, the unwillingness of researchers to freely release their data and/or tools (trust us they say!), the ad-hominem attacks on anyone who questions them, the changing arguments (their models predict Antarctic cooling when its cooling then warming when its warming), on and on
You can only be left with the deep impression that climate science is not science in any meaningful way.
And the fact that so many scientists and scientific organizations have unquestioningly attached their carts to the AGW horse means that they will be pulled over the cliff together.
Any that is deeply frightening to anyone who values science.
Galileo was a “denier” of the consensus. Cardinal Bellarmine was the James Hansen of his day.
Quoth Einstein:
No mention of consensus. He must be a crackpot.
An astronaut/scientist is speaking up about the farce!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,493624,00.html
@6 freetoken
“Climatologists (who overwhelming support the notion that humans are indeed influencing the climate)? All people who are working in the Earth-sciences, most of whom agree that man is affecting the climate (and the biosphere in other ways)? Perhaps all the major professional scientific bodies (which are relevant to the topic), all of which (in the English language world anyway, that I can find) have statements affirming the scientific validity of human induced climate change?”
So how do all of these experts explain that the earth has cooled in the last year? Or are they all Global Cooling deniers.
Peter, You can safely ignore anyone who doesn’t think the current rise in CO2 is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Or at least ask them–where did all the CO2 from burning fossil fuels go?
Ironically, the global warming alarmists cannot use their “Argument from Authority,” as only half of the people who comprise the supposed “consensus” have any autority in the field.
A rebuttal petition that cast doubt on “man-made global warming,” which was comprised of 1,000 times as many signatures as the “global warming consensus” (and composed entirely of people who have authoritative knowledge in he field of study), was drafted shortly after Gore’s announcment that man-made global warming was irrefutable, but was completely ignored.
29. Boris wrote:
Peter, You can safely ignore anyone who doesn’t think the current rise in CO2 is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Or at least ask them–where did all the CO2 from burning fossil fuels go?
Peter writes: I ask again, what are your credentials, besides being a blind follower of the perpetrator of the biggest fraud ever pulled on the people of the Earth, the man with the biggest ‘carbon footprint’ this side of the Mississippi (and probably west of as well) who flies around in his private co2 spewing jet to tsk tsk all the little people driving their cars to work each day, Goricle?
Oh, and yes, I will be ignoring you, permanently, Boris.
Boris:
Here are some of the “Accidents” that Hansen has had with his data:
(1) Fails to make proper Y2K adjustment.
(2) “Discovers” a “random” error in the temperature data that causes early years to have lower temperatures and later years to have higher temperatures.
(3) Includes September data from Russia in October and proclaims October 2008 as the warmest October on record.
Here is the likely truth. (1) He made the correction and discovered it ruined his data hoping that nobody would notice leading to his adjustment found in (2) to restore his temperature record. (3) The inclusion of the wrong Russian data was likely deliberate. Again he hoped it would slip by.
A Scientist who calls for his opponents to be imprisoned have already lost the argument. It is something Lysenko did to his opponents. It is funny that Hansen and others call for a Nurenburg Tribunal for “climate criminals” when it fact they operating int the spirit of the Moscow Show trials.
Don’t you think it’s pretty dumb to ask me for credentials in the comments to an article that claims credentials don’t matter? And how are you supposed to find out my answer if you are ignoring me? You’re not making any sense at all there, Peter.
If one were a bit cynical, one might think that AGW was merely an excuse to increase taxes and government control over individuals – travel, housing, even food.
Any excuse will do really, as its the control that is important, not the excuse.
Of course, certain people, the “elect”, will be granted, or allowed to buy indulgences – one might call those carbon credits.
But for all this work one really does have to burn the heretics. That is Gore’s work.
My personal experience taught me long ago that in certain scientific matters, the only thing worse than being wrong is being right.
The interesting thing is you don’t need any specific knowledge of climate science to know that AGW theory has failed: these theories – and the software models built on top of them – have failed to predict the global cooling that began in 1998.
In fact, these theories and models have failed to track *any* historical climate data when given known initial conditions.
Theories: falsified.
Dr. Tipler, thank you for a very interesting article. I have only one question.
Did your dad tell you who took the strawberries?
“Peter, You can safely ignore anyone who doesn’t think the current rise in CO2 is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Or at least ask them–where did all the CO2 from burning fossil fuels go?”
Into the 6% increase in global plant biomass and consequent 400 million square kilometers of reclaimed desert since the 1970′s. You old enough to remember the desertification scare back then, son? ‘Cause I am, and it was real. Notice a distinct lack of that these days? That’s because it’s reversed itself right smartly now that there’s more food for plants available.
If C02 does continue to go up, plant biomass will keep going right up with it, at least to around 1000 ppm which is what commercial greenhouses target for optimum return on investment. Which is a bigger benefit to the planet than any conceivable consequence of temperature rise, even if you accept the rather specious IPCC projections.
Personally, I suspect that human contributions are way overestimated in the first place relative to oceanic outgassing and we’re going to see atmospheric C02 decrease within the next half-decade as that reverses as the oceans cool in accordance with the quiet sun and Svensmark’s cloud theories. But we shall see!
You silly people, don’t you know that Boris has a giant brain. He discovered that a person’s religion is a genetically inherited characteristic, so he knows all about scientific stuff.
Boris, if you’re actually interested, as opposed to simply parroting crap, let’s look at CO2.
1. CO2 is a really, really small part of the atmosphere. Currently CO2 makes up about 0.0378% of the atmosphere, up from an estimated 0.0280% before the industrial revolution. AGW advocates are arguing that a CO2 concentration increase of 0.009% has heated the world over a half a degree C.
2. The maximum warming should, by greenhouse gas theories, occur in the troposphere (the first 10km or so of atmosphere). Global warming theory strongly predicts that the warming in the troposphere should be higher than warming at the ground. The opposite is actually occurring.
3. The radiated energy returning to space consists of a wide spectrum of wavelengths. Only a few of these wavelengths are absorbed by CO2. Once these few wavelengths are fully absorbed, additional CO2 in the atmosphere has no effect whatsoever. Also, these absorbed frequencies overlap with the absorption of other gasses, like water, which further lessens the incremental effect of extra CO2.
4. When you look at the relationship between CO2 and temperature, you find something funny. At any time in the last 650,000 years, based on ice core datatemperatures actually increased on average 800 years before CO2 started to increase. When event B occurs after event A, it is really hard to argue that B caused A.
I am always amused by assertions that the “experts” and “climatologists” “all agree” on the science of mankind-induced climate change. Many of the comments above make this argument implicitly or explicitly. But the facts are very different. Thirty-one thousand American scientists have signed a petition (http://www.oism.org/pproject/) declaring
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Of course, the MSM have managed to ignore us. What a surprise.
Great article. I have been trying to put my finger on this phenomenon for quite some time. Oddly enough, every one of us can see the same parallel in our own personal lives, if we care to look at our families, our friends, our coworkers, etc. Life is filled with people who expect recognition based on credentials, and also filled with people who know how to get the job done. They are often not the same people. The folks who demand recognition and deference wail the loudest with the least support — I am always shocked by how stark it is when you actually look. ‘Credentials’ are often used to mask abject laziness, or worse, blazing incompetence, always always always. Conversely, those who deserve accolades and deference for their work ethic, competence, and skill never appear to expect them, because what they care about is not recognition — they care about being right, about finding the answer. The truth is its own reward for people who are so motivated. I have never once come across someone I consider to be brilliant who themselves enjoyed being brilliant — but I have often come across people who enjoy being brilliant when they are in fact not.
Well, at least when you were wrong about cosmic expansion you didn’t expect the country to disable its economy based on your understanding.
I recently read an essay called Science and Trans=Science by Alvin M. Weinberg, dealing with the problems of applying science to public policies. He makes the statement, “the attempts to deal with social problems through the procedures of science hang on the answers to questions which can be asked of science and yet which cannot be answered by science.” Some of these issues he gave as examples were “Biological Effects of Low-level Radiation Insults,” “The probability of extremely improbable events,” such as the probability of Hoover Dam being destroyed by an earthquake.
We know there have been huge catastrophes in the Earth’s past and that some of these, such as tsunamis resulting from landslide from islands in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans hitting our coasts are pretty certain to occur, but I don’t see anybody trying to shore up the Hawaiian or Canary Islands. Why not? Because the environmental movement hasn’t found a way to use those events to raise funds.
“You can safely ignore anyone who doesn’t think the current rise in CO2 is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Or at least ask them–where did all the CO2 from burning fossil fuels go?”
Good question, Boris, ‘cus the rise of CO2 doesn’t match the climate models, either, the anthropogenic CO2 according to models should be higher than it is…
Allow me to answer, because this question is a perfect display of why laypeople are so easily swayed by the AGW rhetoric. Natural production of CO2 in our atmosphere is vast. Estimates are that anthropogenic contributions are less than 3% of the total. So, Boris might as well ask “where does the other 97% go?” This is where the subject of feedback enters the equation.
Nature stores CO2, in the oceans, in the soil, in the trees. Every year, vast quantities are emitted, then reabsorbed. It is a feedback system in which the quantity reabsorbed is proportional to that emitted. In a stable feedback system, an increase of 3% in production would result in… a 3% increase in the overall level. The catastrophic AGW theories, however, predict latent instability, such that a 3% increase at best accumulates, and at worst launches an uncontrollable, runaway greenhouse. Without that hypothesized positive feedback, there is no AGW emergency whatsoever.
There is currently no evidence that such positive feedback exists, it is merely hypothesized in a worst case scenario. The existence of such unstable feedback, moreover, is belied by the fact that the Earth has not previously experienced a runaway greenhouse in eras when the atmospheric CO2 concentration and ambient temperatures were significantly higher than today.
“(1) Fails to make proper Y2K adjustment.”
Small error (not Y2K, btw). Global results did not change.
“(2) “Discovers” a “random” error in the temperature data that causes early years to have lower temperatures and later years to have higher temperatures.”
Something you just made up?
“(3) Includes September data from Russia in October and proclaims October 2008 as the warmest October on record.”
Data transcription error. Never proclaimed October 2008 warmest ever.
Wow, jerry, 0 for 3. If he’s lying, then sue him. Otherwise, STFU.
Nice article Prof Tipler. I was just thinking about this last night as I was watching The Universe Series and the episode about the earth. They went on and on about CO2 and AGW, but never showed a single piece of data that connected the two.
I do have to disagree with your final statement regarding Herman Wouk’s brilliant novel, “The Caine Mutiny.”
The man with the rank, (Bogart) certainly did have performance creds. (SPOILER WARNING!!!!)
The whole point of the book, revealed in the end, was that he was competent and qualified, but that years of combat, and the stress of combat command had unhinged him mentally. The actions of the Fred MacMurry character used this (for his own agrandizement) to set the rest of the officers against him, when they should have been sympathetic and helped him. The Captain reached out to them for support, realizing his mental state was tenuous, but they turned their backs on him. This is what pushed the Captain over the edge. It was the disloyalty of the officers that endangered the ship by exaserbating the Captain’s mental problems.
If you think about it, There might even be a better analogy there. In the end, it’s politics that determine the outcome. Which was, I think, the point of your article.
“1. CO2 is a really, really small part of the atmosphere.”
If lead is a really really really small part of your bloodstream, you are dead. Nonsense argument.
“2. The maximum warming should, by greenhouse gas theories, occur in the troposphere (the first 10km or so of atmosphere).”
You’re a bit out of date as there is an increased warming trend in the troposphere. This is expected of any warming at the surface (see the wet adiabatic rate).
“3. Once these few wavelengths are fully absorbed, additional CO2 in the atmosphere has no effect whatsoever.” The wavelengths are nowhere near fully absorbed. This has been known since the 1930s (see the work of Calendar) so your argument’s slightly dated.
“4. When event B occurs after event A, it is really hard to argue that B caused A.” Except CO2 is a known GHG, as you seem to accept in point 3. No one argues that CO2 ended the ice ages. But it did amplify the warming.
I must quibble with one point. The novel “The Caine Mutiny” differs from the real-life case of Halsey’s typhoon. In the novel none of the ships in the fleet was lost, even though only the Caine turned into the wind. Therefore, in the novel, in 20-20 hindsight, there was no concrete need for Maryk to relieve Queeg.
“AGW advocates are arguing that a CO2 concentration increase of 0.009% has heated the world over a half a degree C.”
To me, this is the core of the discussion. It seems like it should be easy to set up some kind of experiment that would show the relationship between CO2 and temperature increase. I may be missing something, but the bilions of $ spent every year on AGW reasearch should have provided some empirical data in this area.
Freetoken you are correct that there is no requirement for counter-intuitive findings to validate a scientific hypothesis.
I think that the point that the author is trying to make is that the holdings of AGW – now Anthropogenic Climate Change – have come to resemble a sort of tautological system. That is, the claims of AGW/ACC advocates are incontrovertible because they accommodate all possible outcomes by their definition a/o application.
You tend to see a lot of ‘just so’ rationalizations applied to phenomena that are linked to ‘climate change’. This is especially apparent where these are secondary and tertiary affects (e.g. Ecological Phenomena).
Boris:
You are a child. #1 changed his results to making the 1930s the warmest decade on record.
http://theworldsworstblog-really.blogspot.com/2007/08/global-warming-darling-james-hansen-y2k.html
You can check on his attempt at adjustment here:
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2009/01/cheating-in-nasa-climate-data-probable.html
And of course he claims a transcription error but given his past history of manipulating data it is more likely that he faked it. This wouldn’t be the first time a deperate scientist seeing his lifes work melt away would do some obvious fakery to try to keep his scam going.
So I am 3 for 3.
Your “sue” him remark is so juvenile. You must be in high school.
Stop looking for emperical data. There is none. The entire environmental movement is a hoax being perpetrated by religious people who have learned to tax you and me to support their beliefs. This is lots easier than passing the collection plate, plus the income is guaranteed.
The author hit upon the fundamental problem with environmentalism, it is all conjecture and supported only by the fallacious argument of authority. The AGW theory is a perfect political storm and nothing more. It is used to get money from our government. Even if the poor politician does not believe in this theory, he dares not say so. He fears that the majority believe it and, being a slave to majority opinion, he doesn’t care a whit about the truth, only about his political backside. That is why even Mitt Romney raised his hand when the Republicans were asked for a show of hands of the true believers in this theory. Because he is so reluctant to oppose anything about which the truth cannot presently be known, he passively supports the inclusion of this canard in the public classroom. Here is where the Government gets involved in the State sponsored support of religion. Billions have now been spent, in our public schools, to indoctrinate our children. And, they have learned environmentalism more thoroughly than any other subject. They think themselves to be enlightened on this subject, and while they might have some unconnected dots in their minds, they aren’t intellectually prepared to even question that ridiculus demagogue, Al Gore. He sounds like what they hear every day.
I have no need to prove these politically motivated theorists to be wrong. I couldn’t if I wanted to and THAT is what makes it the perfect political storm. But, when the Pythagorean theorum was put forth, was it Pythagoras or was it the deniers, who was required to prove it. I have never proposed any environmental theories and I will leave it up to it’s proponents to come up with the proofs. But I won’t hold my breath while Al Gore flies around the world scooping up cash prizes for lending his immense, and eminently assumed, authority to the AGW proponents cause.
I am not the smartest guy reading this thread, but I try to never be taken in by arguments from authority. We will never overcome this debacle unless we treat it as theory, and not as facts in our public schools. It makes me wonder why anyone would trust the Government to educate our children, period.
Greenhouse? Build one. Put a thermometer in it. Now paint it flat black. Care to guess the temperature? Greenhouses work because they eliminate convection cooling – not by any magical dipole properties of glass radiation transparency. Course, the black one is only good for mushrooms.
Some years ago I was facing an entirely different conundrum, and The Caine Mutiny helped me to solve the problem.
While in the Army I worked for and with a series of senior officers whom I thought were, for lack of a better term, crazy. Their behavior patterns were very extreme and very similar, and were particularly marked by temper tantrums, petty nonsense, and dishonesty.
I got out of the Army and went back to school determined to find out why the Army produced so many crazy officers. I settled on an MBA program, believing that I would have the opportunity to study management and management psychology. Nothing in the curriculum remotely touched on my primary interest, and almost nothing I found in extensive outside reading in management and psychology was of use.
I was discussing this problem with my Uncle and he became quite excited. Uncle had been a shipmate with Herman Wouk, and their ship and captain were the models for Captain Queeg and the Caine Mutiny. Captain Queeg (Wyatt) was exactly in the pattern that I had observed in the Army, and the story of the Caine described in realistic detail the troubles and conflicts caused by “crazy” officers.
At this time I went back to work in a civilian job. My first two supervisors (in two different companies) were exactly in the pattern.
With this bit of intel from Uncle, and my curiosity aroused, I stopped looking in the literature and started talking to people in organizations. I quickly found many similar cases of crazy bosses and supervisors. I was able to collect about fifty written reports on this type personality, and could always find several eye-witnesses while giving management seminars on the topic.
There is one other universal characteristic of this personality: without exception they all repeatedly made a signature statement, “I am a tough son-of-a-bitch” or something very similar. Queeg’s expression was that he was an “unholy SOB”.
Parsing “tough son” or another alternative statement “tough (little) bastard” gives “tough child”, a contradiction. In fact, the insistence on toughness is a defense mechanism protecting a fearful personality from being perceived as weak, and a shield from that weakness.
Does anyone have a handle on Jim Hanson? Has he ever been reported to have said anything like, “I am a tough SOB”? Almost certainly, the statement would have been made to subordinates and not to superiors.
An aspect that hasn’t been touched on by any commenter: “pious fraud”.
I know a number of people working in climate-related fields that have privately expressed skepticism of me about AGW (not about natural climate change), but “if that’s what it takes to wean people off fossile fuels before they run out”…
Oops, “to me”, not “of me”…
In case this wasn’t obvious, there are plenty of good reasons to look for “Energy 2.0″. AGW just isn’t one of them…
“where did all the CO2 from burning fossil fuels go?”
Into the atmosphere, and then back into biomass as plants grew, or into solution in the oceans, just as CO2 from any other source does. We’re still talking about a couple percent of the total of a trace gas (CO2 is .003% or so of the atmosphere, whereas water vapor varies from 1% to 4% of the atmosphere.)
#29 Boris — “Peter, You can safely ignore anyone who doesn’t think the current rise in CO2 is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Or at least ask them–where did all the CO2 from burning fossil fuels go?”
Ahhh, it’s time to bring up the C12/C13 ratio proof. Do you want to do it or should I?
Aw, heck. I’ll do it.
Folks, the ratio of these two isotopes prove that mankind DOES contribute to atmospheric CO2. One of the isotopes can only come from burning fossil fuels.
Problem is, the ratio says man’s contribution is…. 3%.
Whoops.
That’s why you don’t see this trumpeted at every possible opportunity. And it’s not like the warmers haven’t looked. If it were a bigger number, the warmers would be shoving this up your… well… you know… at every opportunity.
Worse, nobody really agrees about CO2 longevity in the atmosphere, although generally you can say at least a couple of decades (and some molecules will last a millenia.) Why this is important is that oceans absorb CO2 when they cool, and emit CO2 when they warm.
But… what gets emitted is the last stuff that went in. The upshot here is that the 3% figure doesn’t necessarily represent man’s current contribution, but may indeed be MAN’S CUMULATIVE FOSSIL FUEL CONTRIBUTION since the beginning of the industrial age.
And that number is… THREE percent.
Over to you, Boris.
#33 jerryofva — “Here are some of the “Accidents” that Hansen has had with his data:”
Careful there. These are neither egregious nor deliberate. Everyone makes mistakes. UAH had a problem with satellite drift data for years and nobody’s calling for their heads. And the Hubble boo-boo when it first launched wasn’t grounds for calling for an investigation of a probable optical conspiracy.
Like the bumper sticker says — stuff happens.
And lastly, everyone ought to have a peek at this –
http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages
Seems that when actual science gets done, interesting results happen.
“But… what gets emitted is the last stuff that went in. The upshot here is that the 3% figure doesn’t necessarily represent man’s current contribution, but may indeed be MAN’S CUMULATIVE FOSSIL FUEL CONTRIBUTION since the beginning of the industrial age.
And that number is… THREE percent.
Over to you, Boris.”
C12/C13 ratios show that the entire increase of CO2 since industrial times is from FF burning. Three percent per year, yes. But CO2 levels have increased 30% total.
No, your conspiracy nonsense is juvenile. If you can’t prove it, then maybe you should just be quiet. If you can prove it, then do something besides whining on the internet.
Unfortunately, this article is an allegory for the Obama administration as well as AGW. As the sycophantic press “ooohhhs and “aaahhhs” over the nomination of one ivy league degree after another, yet remain ignorant of the nominees’ lack of practical experience. Take Tim Geithner who pleads tax code ignorance while serving as the Secretary of Treasury. Even Obama, himself, ivy league degrees with no release of transcripts (implies that any Harvard grade is better than a 4.0 from anywhere else), a tenured university law professorship with nary a publication, etc. Even outside of politics, Bernie Madoff, whose investment results were too good to be true, remained uninvestigated by the SEC.
Spurred on in great part by the sensationalism of the media, we have become a society largely impressed by the appearance of authority rather than facts at hand. God help us all!
“entire world scientific community has become totally politically compliant”
I know no scientist who does not have political connections and an emotional commitments who has looked at the primary data used for global warming and beleives that AGW is true. None. Go to your local universities, talk to the professors. ask people in industry in unrelated fields. Everyone thinks its a political nighmare.
Furthermore there is no way to test the hypothesis. Since two temperature scales have shown a decrease in temp since 1998 yet an increase in Co2, ask yourself how we can judge the effects of co2 abatement programs?
If massive co2 abatement had started in 1998, and co2 kept rising and temperatures went down, would it be concluded that the programs are working?
if we start massive co2 abatement programs now, and temperature continues to go down and c02 rises at a decreased rate, would the program be a success?
If we start massive co2 abatement programs now, and temperature stays the same or goes up, and co2 continues to rise or even flatten out, was the program a success, or would it be said we need a bigger program?
If there is no way to tell if co2 capture and abatement program works, then how can it be instituted?
Every time some scientist does speak, they are called “right wing” “denier” “bought by oil”
This is not science.
Here are some rules that I have found useful. Number 3 seems to apply here, altho there’s not much money to be made thereby.,
1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
2. Do not think it worthwhile to proceed by concealing evidence for the evidence is sure to come to light.
3. When the experts disagree, the layman dare not hold an opinion.
4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your spouse or children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
5. There are always contrary authorities to be found.
6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter
9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think it is happiness.
B. Russell
1951
67. Old Chief wrote:
3. When the experts disagree, the layman dare not hold an opinion.
Peter writes: The only problem with that statement is the AGW crowd is trying to make everyone believe all the experts agree, and those that don’t are not experts at all, but blasphemers.
*** Imagine picking an admiral on the basis of the prestige of an officer’s education. ***
And then imagine voting for a US presidential candidate with no real world experience.
Quoth Boris:
Boris, let me ‘splain how American leftists are supposed to refute arguments:
K? Observe and learn.
Old Chief,
Perhaps a little elaboration on why #3 (‘When the experts disagree, the layman dare not hold an opinion.’) is so relevant is in order. This is exactly why the consensus myth is so important for these propagandists. If they can hoodwink the public into believing that the debate’s over save a handful of cranks, then skeptics are in ‘area 51/who shot JFK/9-11 was an inside job’ territory. And indeed there is a conspiracy of environmental activists to keep this lie afloat that only crackpots question the “consensus”.
It’s like a chess game where the whole game hinges on a couple of pawns, and none of the rest of the pieces are in play.
Everyone remember:
1. There is no consensus.
2. Even if there were, it doesn’t matter in science. That’s the essential difference between science and orthodoxy.
I am surprised that this article opens with the assertion that “Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is justified via argument from authority: a consensus of “experts” holds that humans are responsible for the increase in the Earth’s average temperature during the twentieth century”, as this statement in fact does not provide an example of “argument from authority”. An actual “argument from authority” is based upon using the proponent’s status, office or credentials as the sole support for the assertion in question. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
The assertion “I have a Ph.D. in climatology and I assert that AGW exists” would be an argument from authority. However, the statement “I have a Ph.D. in climatology and I assert that AGW exists based upon the results of my team’s peer-reviewed study published in the journal ‘Nature’” is NOT an argument from authority – it is an argument which turns on the validity of the said research results, not based solely on reliance on the proponent’s supposed authority, credentials or fame. While there may be some scientists arguing for AGW based solely on reference to their own (supposed) qualifications, the vast bulk of arguments which I have seen in the literature in favor of AGW are advanced on the merits of actual published research in the area (for example, the IPCC’s AR4 meta-survey of the published scientific literature through 2005).
Although the persons advancing such pro-AGW arguments in the scientific literature often have substantial academic credentials, this is hardly a disqualification of the argument, since as the above-noted Wiki on “Appeal to Authority” notes “There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism: It can be true, the truth can merely not be proven, or made probable by attributing it to the authority, and the assumption that the assertion was true might be subject to criticism and turn out to have actually been wrong.”
A strong hint that peer-reviewed research on AGW actually exists in the scientific literature can be found by entering “global warming” in Google Scholar and perusing some of the 299,000 results returned by the search.
Regards.
So the world isn’t flat? But there’s a consensus? So confusing.
Bollocks.
Lol, Dr. Roy “intelligent design” Spencer. Nice one.
What counter-intuitive predictions have the Global Warmers ever made?
Well, James Lovelock predicted the Ozone hole, and was roundly ridiculed for it. He is now one of the most pessimistic “Global Warmers”
76. Richard Dell wrote:
Well, James Lovelock predicted the Ozone hole, and was roundly ridiculed for it. He is now one of the most pessimistic “Global Warmers”
Peter writes: Ihave also seen documentaries that state the Ozone hole was always there, and that like global temperature, fluctuates in size due to natural circumstances as opposed to man-made circumstances, and that the only reason it appeared when it did, ‘discovered’ per se, was that we developed the technology to detect the hole that had been there for years, decades, perhaps centuries.
We should also remember Bryson’s prediction that:
“A long term study of climactic conditions would place the first half of the twentieth century into an exceptionally warm period. The warming trend peaked in 1945, and the temperatures have been dropping since. The drop to date is on 1.5 degrees C, far from the 10 degrees C drop necessary for a new Ice Age. If this trend is not reversed, however, the planet may be caught in an ice-forming cycle similar to that of the Pleistocene.”
“Bryson and Brooks are in agreement, however, that the world is heading into a period of weather unfavorable for agriculture (because of the cold). This is extremely bad news because of the explosion of population in many countries of the world. It appears as if we will be producing less, rather than more, food. As food reserves dwindle we may move into a period of massive, unimaginable tragedy.”
Bryson’s prediction has come true. We are now in an era of global cooling.
Gore and his elite cronies are laughing all the way to the bank over this fraud! He’s much like Henny Penny in perpetuating this myth that *we humans can control the earth’s warming and cooling*.
Now, some years later, Gores net worth has risen (thanks to all the Chicken Littles he has scurrying around the globe yelling the sky is falling…err…I mean warming). Now Gore’s net worth is over $100,000,000.00!! Before he started this fraud, he was worth less than $1m.
Far MORE credentialed scientist deny his theory. But hey, that doesn’t stop obama. I wonder what BO is wanting to gain from this lie???
Polor ice caps are back to 1970s levels…and growing. The average temp of the earth has been dropping for over 4 years now.
Check this link out.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
“It is generally agreed that changes in the sun/earth relationship are the major mechanism driving long-term climate patterns. These are collectively known as the Milankovitch Effect and include; changes in the Earth’s orbit caused primarily by the gravitational pull of Jupiter with a 100,000-year cycle; changes in the tilt of the Earth of undetermined cause, with a 40,000- year cycle; and a shift in the date of equinox with a 19,000-year cycle. Although Milankovitch’s work was initially accepted it lost favor when his results conflicted with some radiocarbon data. I recall conferences in the 1980s when reference to Milankovitch brought vigorous protest. However, by the 1990s he was back in favor.
Another important point about the Pravda article is the observation that supporters of the human caused global warming (AGW) only consider a short time frame. “ The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past 1,000 years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years–evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology.” It is true that the now discredited “hockey stick” examined climate of the last thousand years, but this was only to try and eliminate the Medieval Warm Period. In fact, the focus is at most the temperature of the last 140 years”
Outstanding monograph; should be required reading in every high school logic class. Indeed, in every middle school class, too.
Steven Brockerman, MS
Science depends on 4 pillars, in roughly this order:
1. peer review and replication (which denialists have attacked. for years their trope was that peer review was broken or farcical because it did not reinforce their paid or ideological programs). It’s slightly more important, actually, to keep bad research and data from being included than it is to build …
2. a consensus on what past data, observations and experimental results meant. A consensus is the only way to establish at any point what a science says about any subject. Denialists like Tipler are the most absurd and anti-scientific of all, because it’s only when a consensus emerges that something even becomes part of science. It also directs where you look for …
3. the collection of new data. Denialists have tried to thwart this, both by harrassing data collectors (even those collecting data for other purposes, c.f. the Daddy’s Polaroid shows there’s no global warming project by anthony watts) and worse, by trying to cut off funding for data gathering, claiming scientists use the money for their personal needs or for advocacy. Worse still, they mask the fact that the corporations won’t continue to fund research that doesn’t match their profitable pre-set conclusions by pretending that research scientists who aren’t corporately funded are in it for the money – money they’re actually spending on research, data, observation and experimental results, all of which they’re trying to overwhelm, because they realize science is trying for …
4. Unbiased results without severe conflicts of interest, and in particular, with targets driven by successful past results and not pet theories or stealth agendas, not cherry-picked, statistically mangled, or worst of all, “corrected” by eliminating noise or error in one, prejudicial, desired direction. Denialists, of course, want to do all that and still slap “science” on it to steal the prestige and trust science has accumulated over centuries of progress.
When we say there is a war on science, we mean on all of it. Peer review. A consensus on results. Data gathering. Research integrity.
People like Tipler are allowed by their academic faculties to be cheats, frauds, charlatans and enemies of the scientific process in any area other than their own specialty without penalty. If he tried to pull this same crap in mathematical physics, even with its current lack of connection to data and experiment, his reputation would be mud, he’d never go to another conference, he’d get no students, no funding, and eventually either suffer or be driven out.
As a check of my work here, feel free to call Tulane, find whatever’s closest to climate science there, and ask them if they agree with Tipler. I guarantee the answer will be no, ESPECIALLY if you bring up this completely Young Earth Creationist trope about “consensus not being science.”
“Lol, Dr. Roy “intelligent design” Spencer. Nice one.”
Ad hominem always works as a distraction when it is revealed you have no idea what you are talking about.
This is really an interesting thread. Lot of good info and intelligent discussion on both sides. I don’t know what to make of the whole thing though. Conflicting ‘schools of thought’ in science are usually based on differing assumptions. That’s fine, because it’s the foundation of science.
But when one school consists of members of one political ideology, and the opposite school consists of members of the opposing political ideology, none of it is science anymore, it’s politics. Or religion, the difference between the two, (politics and religion) frequently being indistinguishable.
Marion,
Your comments on the “pillars of science” are simply wrong.
Peer review is not now and never has been a primary pillar of science. Placing before or equal to replication is crazy. Peer reviewed articles are the primary pillar of a tenure application. They are a way of measuring the career progress of a post-doc, assistant and associate professor. They are an opportunity for a tenured professor to get a pay raise.
Undergraduates were taught in my day (about 20 years ago) that peer review simply meant that an editorial board had read the document and not found any major mistakes. Peer review has very little or nothing to do with validating the results. Reviewers do not try and replicate. They just make sure that the results are not insanely implausible. Indeed, I think AGW is not insanely implausible just pretty implausible.
The cornerstone of science is reproducible experiment. Why do I believe the earth is round? Reproducible experiment. Why do I believe in evolution? Reproducible experiment. Why do I think Lamarck was wrong and Darwin right? Reproducible experiment. Why do I believe quantum mechanics, relativity, Maxwell’s equations..? Reproducible experiment. Notice how utterly independent of peer-review the term “reproducible experiment” is. Marvel at how completely separated from motive, politics and religion “reproducible experiment” is.
I say “reproducible experiment” and I am done. Nothing else is required of science.
If a “consensus” of “scientists” decided one of the above were not true it would have very little effect on me without a presentation of the experimental evidence. If they made it hard to reproduce their results by – say – requiring FOIA requests to see their data, I would be even less inclined to believe them.
Your complaint about data collection being hindered because of (presumably FOIA) requests from people who are looking to reproduce results speaks directly to this point. People like Hansen, seem to resent others attempting to reproduce their experiments. They’ve made it hard to do so. They’ve hidden procedures in obscure code that they had to be forced to release. They do the opposite of what should be regarded as science.
That is a true attack on science.
Without the reproduction of results, the results are meaningless.
No matter what official newsletter of whatever professional society they appeared in.
Right on, Joe. Marion is confused.
Marion,
I don’t know. Your 4 pillars of science seem more like pillars of the political of AGW, propped up by science. This is how each of your numbered items look to me:
1. What most people believe to be true is a pillar of science.
2. If you disagree with what most people believe, you are stupid, evil, or the pawn of corporate interest.
3. New data collection to bolster the ‘truth’ is thwarted by the evil corporate interests mentioned in #3. (some documented examples would be nice here.)
4. Any evidence that is contrary to the ‘truth’ must be biased, corrupt, or twisted because the ‘truth’ has been established by #1. To understand the motives of those people (the deniers), see #2.
These are the same arguments that I hear over and over again, stated in one form or another. They are charaterised by distain and contempt for anyone that has an oppossing viewpoint. Every single one of your pillars contains a personal or collective attack at the people with whom you disagree.
This what I was talking about in my post above. There is some weird mixture of science and politics to this whole discussion, that makes it really difficult to consider either side objectively.
On a lighter note, you thankfully left out the argument that is the favorite, or the trump card if you will, of my liberal friends (mostly educated in the social sciences). Their final word on AGW is that it must be true because, “what else could it be”?
Self-hating Boomer:
The global warming conspiracy was started more than 100 years ago by the likes of Fourier and Arrhenius. They realized they could create opportunities for research grants in 100 years time with their scam. This is the longest running, as well as the biggest, conspiracy of all time.
Boris has it completely backward, as usual.
Plenty of people have called James Hansen a “liar” in public. They have called Michael Mann a liar for his bogus hockey stick. Lots of AGW purveyors have been called “Liars.” And they bend over and take it! Every last one of them.
Not a single one of them has sued anyone for defamation. Not one! They put their craven tails between their legs and pretend they don’t hear what people are calling them — in public.
When someone is called a liar in public, and they refuse to go to court to clear their own name and reputation… you can be pretty certain the name-calling is accurate.
Oh, and about that globaloney warming:
http://www.nationalpost.com/893554.bin
Also, Boris does math like a damned liberal. Sheesh.
You are a liar, Jim Baker. Now sue me. If you don’t the name calling is accurate. Oh, and you’re an idiot, too.
Bart,
Please look up ad hominem before you use it, otherwise you look quite foolish. Belief in ID means that someone is completely non-scientific, or at least as scientific as your neighborhood astrologer or $cientologist. The company you keep, eh?