In which global warming alarmists compare themselves to Galileo to shut off debate
Evidently when liberals lose a debate on the facts, they just declare themselves the winner and commence beating up their opponents. That’s what Mark Hertsgaard is doing in the Politico today. He compares GW skeptics today to the Catholic Church that took a few centuries to acknowledge that Galileo had nailed the earth-rotates-round-the-sun model. Here’s a taste of Hertsgaard’s intemperate arguments.
When virtually every major scientific organization in the world, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and its counterparts in 18 other industrial countries, has affirmed that man-made climate change is real and extremely dangerous, only a crank would continue to insist that it’s all a left-wing plot.
What, are all these organizations and the thousands of scientists associated with them part of a vast conspiracy? Are they all lying careerists or incompetent buffoons? That is the only logical conclusion to draw from the Republicans’ continuing insistence that climate science is bogus.
Despite having no more scientific credibility than the Flat Earth Society, the climate cranks have held our nation’s climate policy hostage for decades. One reason the United States has done so little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the past 20 years is that our government has listened as much to these climate cranks as to real scientists.
Unpack that a bit and you have fallacious appeals to authority, followed by ad hominem attacks and insults. That’s not science, though having worked around more than a few scientists in my time, it’s unfortunately not uncommon behavior for scientists to engage in. Hertsgaard never deals honestly with the ClimateGate emails, which provide extremely strong evidence that the scientists at the heart of the debate were and still are cooking the books. It’s as if “hide the decline” never entered the debate. It’s as if none of the pile of information showing real and widespread fraud done in the name of global warming alarmism never happened at all.
That’s what I call living in denial.
This is rich. Do these cretins realize that
1) Galileo was wrong: He claimed that the earth circled the sun at constant velocity in a perfect circle.
2) His contemporary, Kepler, had proven that the orbit was an ellipse and the speed varied, but the great Galileo denied Kepler’s theory because it conflicted with Galileo’s own statements and, therefore, HAD to be wrong.
3) Galileo came up with a junk science theory that the tides proved the Earth moved, despite the fact that his theory required one high tide a day at noon exactly.
4) When the Church called him on his bogus theory he issued a blistering attack mocking the Church’s ignorance.
Yup, I’d say the climate change terrorists are, indeed, a lot like Galileo. The parallels are exact.
Global Warming and Climate Change now, and soon to be called climate challenge is all BS. Not all since agree. I would like full investigation to temperature record picking and station locations.
Mark Hertsgaard has selected ‘a lot’ of ‘scientists’ as unimpeachable authorities, and has decided to join their clique in shouting because their joint voice is so loud that it must be right.
Unfortunately for him, his tactic shows his thinking outside the bounds of science, which is always skeptical, and always open to new evidence and the logical revisions resulting from its adoption. So there’s little reason for a scientifically aware reader to accept his conclusions.
But then, his journalistic salary depends on selecting subjects for their popularity and saleability – much as politically-directed grants are awarded to the loudest ‘authorities’, particularly when billions of dollars might also be directed to one industry or other depending upon the conclusions reached by said authorities.
Might I point out that it was Galileo who was against the ‘settled science’ at the time? Thus the idiot reverses the whole lesson. And his point about Galileo being right? That would be the skeptics being right, correct?
Typical liberal reasoning.
I left this comment in the thread. Probably won’t be understood but what can you do:
Everyone knows that Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex in his farewell speech. But he also had this to say about science:
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”
Read it carefully. Because the climate-change agenda is perfectly described where public policy has become captive of a scientific/technological elite.
Look, I’m a practicing scientist (not climate science). I live by the tenets of good science every day. As an outsider, I have to say that the climate science is pretty weak. There are huge uncertainties in the measurements, lots of poorly controlled variables, and as exposed by Climategate, computer models that are riddled with fudge factors and crappy primary data. I’m not saying there is fraud. But here is the reality: it is easier to get public money to do research when you claim an imminent catastrophe than it is when you claim that things are pretty much ok. I think that the scientists involved hyped their work, it got picked up by the politicians and NGOs and things just got out of hand.
In this context, it would be folly to use this stuff to shape public policy.
As for the ‘warmers’ and their opponents, I think it is important for both sides to realize that they are not arguing science but rather using science to advance their beliefs. This will go nowhere and promises to further corrupt an already teetering science.
Just too funny.
I like this, too: U.S. debt “causes” global warming. Heh.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/16/forget-co2-us-debt-causes-warming/#more-34055
Pretty good correlation, I’d say. But correlation is not causation. Have any of the alarmists’ computer models disqualified natural forces as the major contributor to the warming seen in the past few decades? How about to the cooling in the 1970s which led to worries of an ice age? James Hansen’s computer models were apparently used to predict dangerous cold then.
The basic science is hardly mentioned in the discussion above: the Keeling curve showing a constantly increasing carbon dioxide concentration since he started his measurements in the 50s, now reaching levels not seen in human history or even through many glacial/interglacial periods. By the way, Dr. Keeling was a Republican, when he was alive. He had no political agenda. This is a basic fact. What does it mean? Nothing? Past planetary history would imply otherwise, climate models suggest otherwise too. This is where it gets muddy, but the basic facts remains. Why attack sincere people who suggest that increasing carbon dioxide is a concern for humanity? There have been no scientifically credible explanations proposed except human energy use (combustion). This is not to blame ourselves; this is also a fact. But, what do we do about it? Nothing? Maybe so, but we are still responsible for the consequences, particularly to our descendants. Like abortion, denying the facts about the humanity of the fetus does not change the consequences when the fetus is aborted. Let’s make a decision with eyes wide open! Be morally tough!
For the last thirty years or so, I’ve taught writing, especially research writing and the use of logic. So here I’m adding remarks as I would to the work of first year college student. My comments are in brackets.
“Evidently when liberals lose a debate on the facts, they just declare themselves the winner and commence beating up their opponents.”
[Overgeneralized. Most liberals? Some liberals? Typical liberals? Needs qualification.]
“That’s what Mark Hertsgaard is doing in the Politico today. He compares GW skeptics today to the Catholic Church that took a few centuries to acknowledge that Galileo had nailed the earth-rotates-round-the-sun model. Here’s a taste of Hertsgaard’s intemperate arguments.
[The use of "intemperate" smacks of begging the question. Why are they intemperate. This needs IMMEDIATE explanation to avoid this pitfall. WHY is this use intemperate?]
“Unpack that a bit and you have fallacious appeals to authority, followed by ad hominem attacks and insults.”
[Where are the "fallacious appeals to authority"? Hertsgaard refers to "virtually every major scientific organization in the world, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and its counterparts in 18 other industrial countries." His use of "virtually" is adequate qualification to allow for the few scientists who disagree. Plus, he offers specific examples to support his statement and allow readers to verify his assertions. Are you saying that climate scientists are not qualified to speak about climate change? If so, you might want to reread the definition of "appeal to authority." Using actual authorities on a subject is the heart of argument. Such appeals are fallacious only when those cited are not really authorities. For example, citing James Inhofe or Al Gore could well be fallacious since neither of them are scientists, much less climate scientists. Also, where are the ad hominem attacks? Do you refer to "climate cranks"? To be effective, point to an example and explain WHY.]
“That’s not science, though having worked around more than a few scientists in my time, it’s unfortunately not uncommon behavior for scientists to engage in.
["Not uncommon behavior": Now HERE's an ad hominem attack. Plus, this comment also contains an element of hasty generalization.]
“Hertsgaard never deals honestly with the ClimateGate emails, which provide extremely strong evidence that the scientists at the heart of the debate were and still are cooking the books. It’s as if “hide the decline” never entered the debate.”
[What are your sources for this? Don't you need to debunk the national level committees that exonerated the scientists on these issues? I'm not going to do your research for you, but weren't there at least two that cleared the scientists? Where did they go wrong? Without that, this fails as argument.]
“It’s as if none of the pile of information showing real and widespread fraud done in the name of global warming alarmism never happened at all.”
[Once again, you are begging the question. First, you must SHOW that there was indeed "widespread fraud." Here, you have failed to do so. Also, the use of "alarmism" is a loaded word. Use of loaded language endangers credibility.]
“That’s what I call living in denial.”
[This is what I call a failed argument. Grade: F]
Thank you. This was a blog post. They tend to be short presentations of arguments that it would tend to take pages to fully flesh out. But to take your points in order, more or less. Most liberals – got me there. Intemperate was a play on words. Your response to “unpack” suffers the same failure as the original article. Those authorities are often cited as if they’re the last word, when they’re not. Science seldom has a “last word,” and certainly doesn’t have one on a system that it cannot fully model to any real level of accuracy. Yes, “climate cranks” is an ad hominem, as is the entire thrust of the original article. “Not uncommon behavior” – scientists are as human as the rest of us, they’re as territorial as the rest of us, etc. My source on that is my eight years at NASA, working with scientists. My source that Haartsgard never deals with the ClimateGate emails is, surprise, the article he wrote, which fails to deal with those emails fairly. The words “pile of information” are bolded and underlined because they’re a link. To the tippy top of the pile of information, which is too much to present in a blog post but with which most of our readers will be at least somewhat familiar, but readers of Haartsgard’s piece are not directed. I’m helping the reader to begin finding that information for themselves. That’s how blogs work.
Cassandra
Most of us do not have the time to waste deconstructing and parsing words and phrases. To date, no climate scientist has proven that human activity is the primary cause of purported AGW. Computer models are not a substitute for hard, scientific factual proof. Until then, parse away arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Most of us have better things to do.
Bryan, do you know what the word absolved means?
As a matter of fact, there have been 5 separate independent inquiries that have looked into the Climategate case and reported on it.
On March 31, 2010, the Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported that the emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that “global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity“. They also said that they had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process.
On April 14, 2010, the Independent Science Assessment Panel published and concluded that the panel had seen “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit.” It found that the CRU’s work had been “carried out with integrity” and had used “fair and satisfactory” methods. The CRU was found to be “objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda.” Instead, “their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible.”
In July 2010, a British investigation commissioned by the UEA, chaired by Sir Muir Russell, announced and published in its final report that it had exonerated the scientists of manipulating their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming. The “rigour and honesty” of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were found not to be in doubt. The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any “competent” researcher.
A separate review by Penn State University into accusations against Michael E. Mann cleared him of any wrongdoing, concluding that “there is no substance” to the allegations against him.
After the July 2010 reports, the New York Times referred to Climategate as a “manufactured controversy,” and expressed the hope that reports clearing the scientists “will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies,”.
The Columbia Journalism Review criticized newspapers and magazines for failing to give prominent coverage to the findings of the review panels, and said that “readers need to understand that while there is plenty of room to improve the research and communications process, its fundamental tenets remain as solid as ever.”
CNN media critic Howard Kurtz expressed similar sentiments.
In June 2010 Newsweek called the controversy a “highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal.”
Bryan, should apologize to those you’ve wrongly accused and stop spreading such disinformation.
Harryhammer –
I’m afraid you’ve been taken in by the impressive whitewashing performed by the AGW crowd. Once Climategate broke, they circled the wagons to defend themselves at all costs. The inquiries were biased and the outcome was almost pre-determined. To say that ANY of the inquiries were through is at a minimum a vast exaggeration. For a little perspective, I suggest you try this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html
Bryan needs to apologize to no one. It is you who is spreading disinformation.
A recent depiction of the earth as it relates to other planets in size affected my perspective on man-made anything having a big effect globally. There’s the earth, a mere flyspeck compared with the sun. And there’s the sun, a mere flyspeck compared with other huge bodies further distant. Frankly, we humans are incapable of influencing much of anything beyond our borders, which climate surely is. So let’s enjoy nature and move on, knowing we’ll never change it.
Cut to the crap:
-Obama was silent on the climate crisis in his State of the Union speech.
-The Republican majority cut the IPCC’s US funding
-Carbon markets evaporated long ago.
-The crisis predicted for 25 years never arrived.
-Funding for lab coat consultants has evaporated.
-The NOAA declared “exaggeration”.
-The Weather Channel has bailed.
-REAL global financial and security dangers and world unrest will evaporate the CO2 mistake.
Charges WILL be laid. Leading us to a false war of climate variation is grounds for treason, just like Bush and his lying and fear mongering. WE were the neocons this time, only of climate change as we issued CO2 death warrants to our kids, just to get them to turn the lights out more often.
Meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over a quarter of a century of climate control instead of needed population control. Call the courthouse. Make the liars pay.
Galileo and Kepler were contemporaries who both accepted that the Earth was not stationary but orbited round the Sun. Galileo discovered the law of falling bodies v^2=d (velocity squared equals distance fallen). Kepler also discovered a reciprocal version v^2=1/r of this where d+r=the major axis of the elliptical orbit. These are not as well known as they should be primarily because the works of both Galileo and Kepler were subject to religious prohibition.
Further to my comments of 28 April 2011, I hope your readers can tolerate a little bit of algebraic notation, let L equal a small change. From v^2=d=1/r which is the usual velocity measure, we have
v^2+Lv^2=d+Ld=1/(r-Ld). For the reciprocal velocity measure we have
v^2+Lv^2=r+Lr=1/(d-Lr). This reflects the two ways of measuring velocity, distance per unit time and time per unit distance, one of which is the reciprocal of the other. Any change of d is equal to the opposite change of r.
Kepler’s area law for time taken can initially be expressed as the area of a triangle t=PXBX(1/2).
If P and B are each replaced by r we will have t=rXrX(1/2). If (1/2) becomes a power we will have t=rXr^(1/2) which is Kepler’s distance law v=r/t=1/r^(1/2) which applies throughout the whole universe.