Paul Sheehan has read a book by Professor Ian Plimer, and is now an expert on the (natural) causes and (beneficial) effects of global warming, not least because "the book's 500 pages and 230,000 words and 2311 footnotes are the product of 40 years' research and a depth and breadth of scholarship."
By contrast, Einstein's 1905 paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies comprises roughly 7,000 words, and has only nine footnotes. Pilmer's accomplishment clearly puts Einstein in the shade.
Of course, if we were to compile all the words, pages, and footnotes that suggest that Plimer is wrong, they'd dwarf his magnum opus like an elephant dwarfs a dust mite. Which just goes to show you that sheer bulk is not always the best way to gauge the accuracy of scientific papers. It just so happens that Plimer's book is voluminous and heavily footnoted because it's correct, while the myriad papers reflecting the consensus view are voluminous and heavily footnoted because they're the product of conformity. That's the kind of detail you're liable to miss unless you have a science-savvy guide like Sheehan.
Plimer is a mining geologist. This makes him uniquely qualified to assess the climate, because, as he notes, "an understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, palaeoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history," and Plimer is presumably pretty well versed in roughly half of these subjects. Unlike "atmospheric scientists, who have a different perspective on time," Plimer understands that the earth has been around for many years. And unlike "catastrophists," Plimer knows that "depopulation, social disruption, extinctions, disease and catastrophic droughts take place in cold times...and life blossoms and economies boom in warm times." (Apparently, you can add paleo-economics to the list of disciplines at which the climate researcher must excel.)
Reading a book of 500 pages is thirsty work, especially if you have to master astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, palaeoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology, and history before you can form a valid opinion on it. Fortunately, Sheehan has boiled it down to the essentials:
- The world is getting warmer, but in a good way.
- Bitches don't know bout the sun.
- CO2 is life!
- The climate is incredibly complicated, so it's impossible to predict what it'll do in the future (unless thy name be Plimer, in which case it's fairly light work, and your prediction that global warming will "bring prosperity and longer life" is almost certainly correct).
- Not only is there no evidence that human activity can warm the climate, there's plenty of "validated knowledge" that it says it can't.
- Computer models are unreliable, so it's a good thing we have this book by Plimer that explains exactly what they'd say if they were accurate.
Just because Plimer is one brave man standing alone against the forces of conformity, don't go getting the idea that he's an "isolated gadfly." Lots of scientists agree with him, more or less. And not in that bad way that scientists who believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas agree with each other. Plimer's colleagues agree with each other in — how shall I put this? — in a subtle articulative way, partaking — or not partaking, rather — of...of...that essential weltschmerz, as it were, which views clothing and medicine and automobiles as so many cold obstetrical devices that've pulled humanity from the womb of the earth, and motivates so many soi-disant "scientists" to position themselves on the anti-prosperity and pro-extinction side of the debate. In short, they agree with each other because it's the correct thing to do.
The main thing, Sheehan notes, is not to fall prey to conformity and orthodoxy. Obviously, this doesn't mean that you should embrace the heavily footnoted work of Matthias Rath, or David Irving, or — God forbid — Ward Churchill. In some fields, conformity and orthodoxy remain comparatively respectable. But when it comes to climate science, the scientific and moral high ground will always belong to a tiny minority of militant crackpot optimists, just as surely as life blossoms when carbon dioxide rises.
19 comments:
Einstein was a piker.
Not only that, but Ward Churchill won his lawsuit on unlawful dismissal.
Another upside to global warming is (eventually, when weather catches up) I won't have to buy a winter coat to replace my old raggedy one.
"Now, I don't want you to get the idea it's just the number of words. Getting them in the right order is important, too."
Plimer knows that "depopulation, social disruption, extinctions, disease and catastrophic droughts take place in cold times...and life blossoms and economies boom in warm times."Gee, I guess the Permian Extinction somehow managed to slip his mind. Funny, that, since it was the greatest mass extinction in the history of the Earth, and it's generally agreed that it was caused by an excessively "warm time".
Oh well, nobody's perfect ...
This article is elitist tripe. The only thing going for the AGW hypothesis is the efficacy of climate models, which is generally thought to horrible. Climate science is in its infancy, yet we're expected to believe mankind can control the climate. The science is settled, we're told. The debate is over, we're told. Modelers should thank their lucky stars that the AGW hypothesis cannot be proved. Lucky for them that some people are willing to overlook the failure of the models' outputs when compared to observed reality.
There are numerous natural causes which might also be the cause of global warming, but the government doesn't pay for research on non-AGW causes. Alas, it seems that valid climate science can only be produced with government funding.
Reading this article, I was reminded of the children's fable about the "King Who Wore No Clothes". You know, the story where the King was tricked into believing that he was wearing a beautiful gown of gold because no one had the courage to tell the king that he had been tricked.... until a small child blurts out that "he is naked" and everyone began to laugh.
In the present time, AGW skeptics are "laughed" at by the believers....believers who clearly convey a sense of entitlement to do so by virtue of their imagined superiority of intellect. Whether their elitist attitude results from personal ego or from access to large government research grants, who knows?
---Daisym
The only thing going for the AGW hypothesis is the efficacy of climate models, which is generally thought to horrible.Er, no. Among other facts, there's the measureable rise in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Age, and the indisputable warming trend of the last half century. You know, little things like that.
Climate science is in its infancy, yet we're expected to believe mankind can control the climate.No, we're expected to believe that billion of human beings vying with each other to see who can pump the most carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at the same time they're methodically destroying the planet's ability to recycle this known greenhouse gas just might end up having some teensy effect on the climate.
I love the way you denialists have gone from "There is no global warming!" to "Well, ok, there is global warming -- but human activity has nothing, <Sgt Schultz>NOZZING!!!</Sgt Schultz> to do with it!"
Essentially, you're doubling down and gambling on tremendous hardship and misery for future generations if you're wrong. And if you're really wrong, we get a runaway carbon cycle -- which means the end of all life on this planet above the bacterial.
Seems just a wee bit hubristic to me, but then I'm probably an egotistical elitist on a large government grant.
If we're wrong, then what -- people will be inconvenienced? Or are you saying our civilization is so precarious that merely attempting to wean ourselves from our utter dependence on a non-renewable resource will crash it?
I think you have a very low opinion of human ingenuity.
(BTW, kudos for the way you shoehorned -- no, crowbarred -- "entitlement", "elitist", and "large government grants" into the last paragraph of your turgid blather. A fine example of authentic Right-Wing Denialist glossolalia!)
Argh! Why does this thing eat line feeds between the end of an italicized chunk and the next block of text?
And that should of course be "billions of human beings".
Argh! Why does this thing eat line feeds between the end of an italicized chunk and the next block of text?
I don't know. It didn't used to do that.
I've put a break in here...let's see if it works....
The only thing going for the AGW hypothesis is the efficacy of climate models, which is generally thought to horrible.
Actually, it has a few other things going for it, which you could learn about if you cared to. And climate models are not "generally thought to be horrible." And even if they were inaccurate, it wouldn't necessarily mean that they were inaccurate in the skeptics' favor. Things could also be worse than the models predict.
There are numerous natural causes which might also be the cause of global warming, but the government doesn't pay for research on non-AGW causes.
Right. Which explains why we know nothing about solar irradiance, nothing about sunspot cycles, nothing about undersea volcanoes, and so forth. It also explains why government websites played up natural causes for the last eight years.
And finally, it explains why the government ignored almost all of the mitigation strategies recommended by the NAS in 1991, even though that fanatic Algore was in the White House for eight years.
Climate science is in its infancy, yet we're expected to believe mankind can control the climate.
If you want to advance a model of the climate in which CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, I'm all ears. And if you want to describe the physical workings of the magic force field that prevents human beings from affecting the climate, that'd be even more interesting.
Really, what needs a scientific explanation is not how humans could affect the climate, but what factors would make it impossible and unthinkable. No one's proposed a mechanism for this yet, as far as I know.
Whether their elitist attitude results from personal ego or from access to large government research grants, who knows?
Right. 'Cause the best way for a scientist to get "large research grants" is to insist that the debate is over, the science is settled, and no more research is necessary. That's just common sense.
As for the bit about "elitism," you may be interested in something I said in an earlier post:
There are plenty of people, on the left particularly, who simply expect everyone to kowtow to scientific authority whether they understand its simplest concepts or not. Honest confusion ends up getting ridiculed, with the result that people become resentful and dig in their heels. Never mind AGW for a moment; the fact that Beck and Hannity can spout peabrained gibberish like this and be applauded for it would be tragic even if there were nothing more serious at stake than people's rudimentary understanding of the world in which they live.
If the idea of AGW as an elitist plot is so appealing to so many Americans, maybe it's partially because so many people who actually do understand the issues enjoy feeling superior to those who don't. If so, that's kind of obnoxious, given that people on the left ought to be aware of the forces that have crippled our educational system, instead of simply blaming the victims.
So you see, I do have some sympathy for your point of view, even though you happen to be wrong on a couple of pretty basic points. And I also understand that it's difficult to believe something so unpleasant and frightening. (Although personally, I think the theory that a global conspiracy has corrupted every scientific body on earth is pretty disturbing, too. Still, God knows I'd be relieved if the whole thing did turn out to be a hoax, so I can understand the relative appeal of this brand of "alarmism." I haven't seen much hard evidence of that conspiracy, though.)
That said, I have to point out that it's fairly "elitist" -- or at least arrogant -- to imagine that you know much more about the climate than people who've actually devoted their lives to studying it, and to feel comfortable asserting that thousands of scientists you've never met are charlatans or liars or communists or whatever.
Again, when you folks have one one-thousandth as much evidence for that hypothesis as there is for AGW, we can talk. Failing that, I can promise that if you get the AGU and the NOAA to change their tune, I'll be very, very happy to change mine.
GM, I was able to fix the problem by adding two break codes (br) in a row. Why it's suddenly started doing this, I have no clue, but at least there's a workaround.
I fixed and reposted my response to Daisym, and deleted the old one for the sake of legibility. Unfortunately, I can't fix yours from my end....
Thanks. I'll try to remember to use that double-<BR> next time.
I can only say I wish I had your patience (not to mention the incisive eloquence and mad parody skilz).
grouchomarxist,
You responded to my comment that "Climate science is in its infancy, yet we're expected to believe mankind can control the climate", but you didn't disagree with this. Thank you! The AGW hypothesis presumes that manmade GHG emmisions, being the cause of harmful climate change, must be significantly curtailed, at great expense to our wallets and our way of life. Yet, at the same time, the infant science of climatology cannot explain how much warming of the past 100 years is of natural causes, how much is from manmade GHG emmisions, and how much is due to manmade non-GHG causes (deforestation, poor land management policies, etc). Nevertheless, we're expected to take drastic action on the presumption that it's the GHG culprit. Despite these holes in the knowledge, you confidently presume to know this is so. I do not share your confidence.
Phila,
Thanks for you response. Your writing style makes it enjoyable to understand your point of view. Even so, we must agree to disagree on AGW. You said, "As for the bit about "elitism," you may be interested in something I said in an earlier post..." and provided a link. At this link, one thing you wrote caught my attention: "...If the idea of AGW as an elitist plot is so appealing to so many Americans, maybe it's partially because so many people who actually do understand the issues enjoy feeling superior to those who don't..."
Regarding the bit about elitism, here's what one American, outgoing President Dwight Eisenhower, had to say in his farewell speech to the nation, in 1961:
"...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 scientific technological elite." (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20 th_century/eisenhower001.asp). This was the speech which coined the term "military-industrial complex". There are other pearls of wisdom in it, but you may read them for yourself.
Another American, one more leaned that I, wrote "...There is an old saying in the law: as the allegation is more serious so should the proof be more clear... I wonder whether, when making their doomsday predictions, they (the AGW alarmists) realised they were making their task of persuading us about the science harder rather than easier. (http://thefatbigot.blogspot.com/2008/07/wise-old-saying.html).
Both quotes are appeals to reason, not science. But this is appropriate, given that we aren't arguing scientific research and facts, as only scientists could.
Regards, Daisym
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 scientific technological elite." Powerfully said, and a real concern. Regardless, in this context, it's simply an anecdote, and doesn't address the science of AGW. Nor does it explain why this "scientific technological elite" has been unable to compel the government to act in any meaningful way since the NAS first recommended doing so.
You're obviously intelligent enough to understand that a quote from Eisenhower is not evidence of anything. That being the case, you can't seriously expect me to be more impressed with a random quote than with the official position of every relevant scientific body on earth.
There is an old saying in the law: as the allegation is more serious so should the proof be more clear... I wonder whether, when making their doomsday predictions, they (the AGW alarmists) realised they were making their task of persuading us about the science harder rather than easier. If this is true, then it's equally true of the theory that public policy has become "the captive of a scientific technological elite." But far from being clear, the "proof" here consists of a quote from Eisenhower; and a counterintuitive claim that says scientists seek funding by pretending that an important scientific question has been settled; and a faith-based belief that humans can't affect the climate...which has no basis in theory, let alone fact.
Dick Cheney used to say that if there was a two-percent chance that terrorists could detonate a nuclear weapon in an American city, we had to treat it as a certainty, from the standpoint of prevention. Personally, I think that there's much more than a two-percent chance that the world's climate scientists aren't part of a massive, multinational, multi-decade conspiracy to falsify climate data. If you're utterly unwilling to concede that as a real possibility, then we do indeed have to agree to disagree.
You are correct. President Eisenhower's words are anecdotal, that they don't address the science of AGW. Then you said, "Nor does it explain why this 'scientific technological elite' has been unable to complel the government to act in any meaningful way since the NAS first recommended doing so."
I disagree with this. If Eisenhower saw the danger of public policy being hijacked by a scientific technological elite, and if his words were more the blathering of an old man, what form would it take? What characteristics might it have? To me, the following items, taken as a whole, answer these two questions. Here are those characteristics:
1. Citing science by consensus as authority to accept CGMs as providing credible and actionable climate projections, despite acknowledging we know too little about the climate system.
2. Citing consensus by proxy to further add credibility and actionability to the GCM's climate projections. If the Board of Directors of the American Physical Society endorse AGW, then they surely speak for the 46,000 members, as well. Right? This inference is unmistakable and often used.
3. Mainstream media reporting bias to tell the alarmist side.
4. Lop-sided research funding. $billions paid for AGW research by the government. Any funding for research by skeptics is, by default, "dirty" money.
5. Sacking or non-renewal of government research funding for scientists who become AGW skeptics.
6. Ad hominem attacks on renowned scientists (Freeman Dyson being the most recent) who express skepticism on any aspect of AGW validity.
7. Illigitimate science (usually misuse of statistical techniques) and suppression of contradictory information: the Hockey Stick graph, and the recent statistical analysis showing that Antarctica warmed .5C over past 50 years.
8. Faulty peer review process (Mann's Hockey Stick, for one).
9. Politicization of the IPCC review process.
10. Zealot-activist scientists (James Hansen being the most notorious).
11. Government activists for AGW legislation (O'Bama, Pelosi, Reid, Schwarzenegger to name a few).
12. Hollwood activists for AGW legislation.
13. Environmental groups' activism and alarmist selling of AGW orthodoxy.
14. Public disinformation. The movie "An Inconvenient Truth" was found to have numerous embellishments and erroneous facts of science, and is but one example.
15. Cap and trade schemes to monetize and institutionalize the AGW hijacking of public policy.
16. Emergence of a nacent "green industry", with $billions being made by some of the world's largest corporations, some who also own major TV networks.
17. Al Gore's $multimillion profits from selling carbon credits and investing in corporations making "green" products, all while finding the ear of the President and other high ranking administration officials. O'bama even uses Gore's "the debate is over" language.
Warmers don't agree with these items, but skeptics/deniers do. To me, these points clearly constitute the characteristics of the hijacking of publicy policy by the scientific technological elite that Eisenhower warned of.
You closed your response to my comment by citing Dick Cheney's 2% chance of a terrorist attack as requiring a response. Cheney could make such a comment because we had actually been attacked and 3,000 people were killed. Your comparison would have had more validity if was an actual sea level rises we could observe, or if we could see any significant warming of our hemisphere. The prospect of seeing this in most people's lifetime seems to depend on which alarmist message we read about today.
I apologize for the length of this comment, but you deserve a comprehensive response.
Daisym.
1. Citing science by consensus as authority to accept CGMs as providing credible and actionable climate projections, despite acknowledging we know too little about the climate system.
Assuming for the sake of argument that we do know "too little" about the climate system, whence the assumption that ignorance is bliss?
2. Citing consensus by proxy to further add credibility and actionability to the GCM's climate projections. If the Board of Directors of the American Physical Society endorse AGW, then they surely speak for the 46,000 members, as well. Right?
While they don't speak -- and don't, as far as I know, claim to speak -- for all members, the official view does represent the dominant viewpoint. Faced with this fact, the denialist side simply advances its own, self-serving version of the same interpretive error it attacks: in this case, it's "only" the boards of directors who believe in AGW, and they're imposing it on the rank and file.
And of course, no one on my side of the debate has ever claimed that all scientists accept AGW. We just think that enough of them believe it to warrant taking their advice very seriously. And we also note that many of the claims the other side makes are illogical or incorrect, which makes us distrust them.
There's nothing weird about this. Some prominent scientists have alternative theories about cancer, and some people think that the medical establishment is suppressing them. Most patients, though, still seek treatment from the people who share a "consensus" on the most effective treatment paradigm, because they think that this is likely to lead to a better outcome.
3. Mainstream media reporting bias to tell the alarmist side.
First, the "alarmist side" is the scientifically dominant one, and reporters are obliged to report that fact, for better or worse.
Second, it's not really "balanced" to suggest, with no evidence at all, that there's a huge conspiracy to falsify evidence...any more than it'd be "balanced" to acknowledge that some people think the Holocaust never happened every time the subject comes up. And yet, people who believe in AGW conspiracies are routinely quoted in news stories, whether they're experts or not.
IMO, the mainstream media have been incredibly hospitable to the denialist side. They write frequent op-eds, their ties to the oil and gas industry are often downplayed or ignored, and their basic mistakes are rarely corrected.
But obviously, the denialists will cry "bias" so long as they remain in the minority. No one expects them to do otherwise; that's how the game is played.
4. Lop-sided research funding. $billions paid for AGW research by the government. Any funding for research by skeptics is, by default, "dirty" money.
Without getting into a debate over the accuracy of this claim, it seems like your argument assumes that AGW-oriented studies, as well as everyday geophysical or astronomical research, don't address the claims of skeptics. Which is something skeptics themselves admit is not true when they use government research to bolster their own case, as they so frequently do.
Are you seriously going to claim that government has provided no serious funding for research into the role of solar cycles and irradiance? Or water vapor? Or other possible natural causes? Haven't these possibilities in fact been considered and largely ruled out as explanations for the rate of warming, in particular?
It seems to me that you're judging the effectiveness of research by the degree to which it agrees with your preconceived stance: if research were being done "correctly," the logic goes, no one would believe in AGW.
But if you really want to be objective, you have to consider the possibility that the consensus view is in fact correct. In which case, the things you're describing seem a lot less sinister, and a lot more like science functioning as it should. Honestly, do you get this upset and suspicious when dissenters in other fields are "marginalized"?
Note that even if what you were saying were true, it's also true that government has consistently provided subsidies, favors, tax breaks, and political cover for the oil and gas industries. So you'd have to agree that they're sending mixed signals, at the very least. Once again, the notion of government as seriously pro-AGW doesn't stand up to critical examination.
Last, some kind of standards have to be upheld within scientific fields. It's not really reasonable to expect generous funding for people who claim outright that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, for instance. Forget for a moment that you're worried about the AGW "hoax," as opposed to the AIDS "hoax" or the evolution "hoax." As a practical matter, where does one draw the line in funding "dissenters"? And who should decide? Should we also give a bunch of money to people who believe in homeopathy or ear-candling or young-earth creationism, just to prove that we're not "biased"? As the saying goes, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Lysenko.
5. Sacking or non-renewal of government research funding for scientists who become AGW skeptics.
Examples, please?
6. Ad hominem attacks on renowned scientists (Freeman Dyson being the most recent) who express skepticism on any aspect of AGW validity.
Your use of the term "renowned" is telling. How much does it impress you when "renowned" scientists agree with AGW?
It seems to me that people like you have no problem with uncritical popular reverence for science...you just want to direct it to your pet dissenters, and no one else. But if Dyson's opinion as a physicist matters, the opinions of thousands of climatologists matter as much or more, whether they're "renowned" or not.
Science isn't supposed to be about cults of personality; it's supposed to be a relatively impersonal process. Dyson is entitled to his beliefs, of course, and his public status, but these things don't automatically make him more credible than all of the relatively anonymous climatologists who disagree with him.
7. Illigitimate science (usually misuse of statistical techniques) and suppression of contradictory information: the Hockey Stick graph, and the recent statistical analysis showing that Antarctica warmed .5C over past 50 years.
Do you have the expertise that is required to assess the statistical techniques in question? I'd ask this in regards to the hockey stick, too.
If so, then you're wasting your time bickering with me, when you could be presenting your findings to your colleagues.
If not, then you're parroting received wisdom, much as you accuse the rest of us of doing. The debate at this point hinges on whether there is, in fact, a massive multidecade conspiracy to falsify data for some sinister purpose, or whether the consensus view, as it now stands, should be taken seriously. Obviously, I take the latter point of view, which seems to me to be prudent and logical.
Also, the word "suppression" gets thrown around an awful lot, but that's a strong claim and it requires a lot more evidence than you provide. Sometimes, studies fail to get attention because they're wrong, or because the results are irreproducible.
10. Zealot-activist scientists (James Hansen being the most notorious).
I'd like you to notice how you view Hansen, as opposed to Dyson. See how ad hominem is suddenly OK when you're talking about Hansen?
Here's a thought experiment for you. Pretend, for a moment, that the consensus view on AGW is basically correct. What would a logical course of action be, for a scientist who is aware of the facts and concerned about them?
I ask this because to me, it seems clear that your characterization of Hansen as a "zealot" stems solely from the fact that you believe not just that he's wrong, but that he has absolutely no chance of being right.
Which gets right to the heart of the problem: You're citing your opinion of Hansen as evidence for AGW being a hoax. But your opinion of Hansen is based on your preexisting, zealous conviction that AGW is a hoax. So it's a circular argument.
11. Government activists for AGW legislation (O'Bama, Pelosi, Reid, Schwarzenegger to name a few).
12. Hollwood activists for AGW legislation.
This is more ad hominem, and more circular reasoning: You don't like these people, therefore they're wrong or lying. But if AGW is correct, it's perfectly logical that people in positions of influence would take steps to draw people's attention to it, and to combat it. The mere fact that they're doing so can't logically be used as an argument against AGW.
The same goes for your point about environmental activists. Here, you're reduced here to circumstantial ad hominem: They stand to benefit from it, in some way, so they must be lying. Chances are, you don't apply the same strict standard to the CEI.
14. Public disinformation. The movie "An Inconvenient Truth" was found to have numerous embellishments and erroneous facts of science, and is but one example.Actually, the few problems scientists who were surveyed had with AIT pertained not to basic facts (e.g., AGW is real, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, increased temperatures will have serious effects on plants, animals, and human society), but to specific predictions (e.g., increased hurricane frequency or a certain amount of sea level rise). Please note that this isn't the same thing as saying that such effects are impossible.
Beyond that, Al Gore is not a scientist and AGW doesn't stand or fall with his movie or his character.
15. Cap and trade schemes to monetize and institutionalize the AGW hijacking of public policy.Again, you're presenting an opinion for which you have no evidence as evidence for the opinion on which it's based: "We can tell AGW is false because ____ is pretending it's real." That's an irrational argument.
16. Emergence of a nacent "green industry", with $billions being made by some of the world's largest corporations, some who also own major TV networks.
Billions are being made by ExxonMobil, too. Why is making money only sinister when "green businesses" do it?
Beyond that, you seem to be arguing that government is pushing AGW for the benefit of major multinational corporations. I'm a little unclear on how strict emissions reductions, for instance, would benefit such companies. Particularly since they themselves keep lobbying against politicians who propose even the most modest AGW legislation.
At this point, it seems like your conspiracy has expanded to include virtually everyone: Huge companies like General Electric, and scientific agencies like the NOAA and the AGU, have teamed up with Hollywood, the government, and radical environmentalism to cripple US productivity for the benefit of the world's largest corporations? Is that the idea?
I don't know what to say, really, except to reiterate that I find all of this a lot more farfetched and a lot less evidence-based than anything on the AGW side of the argument...to put it very, very politely indeed.
Warmers don't agree with these items, but skeptics/deniers do. To me, these points clearly constitute the characteristics of the hijacking of publicy policy by the scientific technological elite that Eisenhower warned of.
As I've pointed out, most of these "characteristics" are opinions that you're trying to use as evidence for other opinions. The problem should be obvious, but in case it isn't, I'll spell it out again: What you're offering as "evidence" stands in just as much need of evidence as the position you're trying to support. The argument is circular: AGW is a hoax, because people are acting as though it isn't a hoax, even though it is.
The only points at which you step out of this self-referential maelstrom are when you challenge the accuracy of the data. Obviously, everything hinges on that point: either the science is wrong, or it's right.
And again, you are either professionally qualified to judge it, or you aren't.
If you are, you're wasting your time talking to me instead of engaging directly with your colleagues and peers.
If you're not, you really need to consider whether you have any right to be as certain as you are that thousands of scientists around the world are liars, charlatans, or dupes.
You closed your response to my comment by citing Dick Cheney's 2% chance of a terrorist attack as requiring a response. Cheney could make such a comment because we had actually been attacked and 3,000 people were killed. Your comparison would have had more validity if was an actual sea level rises we could observe, or if we could see any significant warming of our hemisphere.
So if we hadn't been attacked, ever, it would be silly to worry about nuclear terrorism, and to take steps to prevent it?
Can't agree, sorry. That wouldn't make any sense even if you were correct about the data.
The prospect of seeing this in most people's lifetime seems to depend on which alarmist message we read about today.
Some of that has to do with the "uncertainty" you alluded to elsewhere, which -- contrary to "skeptical" opinion -- doesn't inevitably lead to a happy outcome.
Most of us are worried less about our own lifetimes than our children's, in any case.
Thanks for the conversation. Answer if you like, but be aware that I probably won't be able to answer. Not at anything like this length, anyway.
Whew! Thanks for your response. I appreciate the time you devoted to its thought and writeup. Please don't lose sight of the fact that I prefaced my previous post with the admonition from President Eisenhower's 1961 speech, whereby he said, "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 holdong 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 scientific technological elite."
Given the following assumptions:
a. Eisenhower's admonition was NOT the rambling of an old man, was not a statement having no relevancy, and was thus a lucid warning for future generations of Americans; and,
b. Eisenhower was not referring to obvious fraudsters, kooks, charletans, criminals, or incompetents within the scientific technological community...that the capture of public policy would therefore be by reputable, believable, and credible members of the scientific technological community; and,
c. "Public policy" (in the AGW context) is made by politicians in response to feedback from constituents, industry groups, environmental groups, and lobbyists representing all the above (possibly excepting constituents!); and,
d. There are currently reported to be some 2,400+ lobbyiists (according to news reports) exerting influence on public policy insofar as it pertains to the current Cap and Trade legistation being formulated by the U.S. House of Representatives.
Please answer these TWO questions:
1. What elements do you suppose might be expected to exist for public policy to become a captive of the scientific technological elite?
2. Are these elements in place, today, as it pertains to formulation of public policy relative to measures for reducing AGW emissions of CO2?
HINT: If answering these questions stumps you, Google the search terms "Reputational Cascade" and "Informational Cascade". These terms shed light on the subject at hand (capturing of public policy) but, admittedly, will not settle our disagreemnts on AGW. It does, however, further the cause of our lively debate.
Jeff
Situational ad hominem, that is.
Please don't lose sight of the fact that I prefaced my previous post with the admonition from President Eisenhower's 1961 speech
Having spent a fair amount of time addressing the largely specious and illogical "characteristics" that you offered as evidence that AGW is an elitist hoax, I'm a little annoyed by the implication that I'm losing sight of your stance on scientific elites. On the contrary, I've engaged with it directly, and you've basically ignored my points. I have no desire to start over from scratch.
d. There are currently reported to be some 2,400+ lobbyiists (according to news reports) exerting influence on public policy insofar as it pertains to the current Cap and Trade legistation being formulated by the U.S. House of Representatives.
I'm sure there are many lobbyists interested in cap and trade. But how many of them are lobbying against it?
And meanwhile, how many are lobbyists are shilling for the defense industry (which Eisenhower also worried about, you'll recall), or the medical insurance industry, or the oil and gas industries, or the mining industry? Do you find this sort of influence troubling across the board, or does it only bother you when it relates in some way to AGW?
1. What elements do you suppose might be expected to exist for public policy to become a captive of the scientific technological elite?
Money, power, and human nature.
2. Are these elements in place, today, as it pertains to formulation of public policy relative to measures for reducing AGW emissions of CO2?
These elements are always in place. They always will be. But in themselves, they say nothing about the science of AGW, which is either correct, or incorrect, wholly apart from your freelance speculations.
You're trading in analogies, guesswork, confirmation bias, and pattern recognition...all of which are unscientific and unreliable. And you're offering this ideological witches' brew, with really astonishing arrogance, as an antidote to actual science.
Since I have some grasp of how science works, I realize that there's a the possibility that some or all of the consensus view could be mistaken. And again, I'd be glad if they were. By contrast, you seem to be quite literally incapable of imagining a world in which you and your pet "experts" are wrong.
If I'm mistaken on that last point, please correct me. But as far as I can tell from what you've written here, your goal is to prove a proposition of which you're already convinced, by means of "evidence" that only exists because of that conviction. I don't want to seem rude, but if you can't recognize the logical errors you've repeatedly made here, I see no reason to trust your judgment on the far more complex question of AGW.
You're also wildly inconsistent. You worry about "elites" when it suits you, and treat them as powerless or benign when it doesn't. You worry about the influence of money and power...unless it's on the skeptics' side. You have great respect for "renowned" scientists, unless they disagree with you, in which case they're idiots and dupes by definition. You have an unusually strict standard of proof for AGW, and an unusually relaxed one for global conspiracy. None of this is logically defensible.
It's bad that you have no evidence for your Grand Unified Theory against AGW, and that you misunderstand or ignore the evidence for AGW. But the more serious problem, IMO, is that you're making arguments that reveal you as someone who simply can't think clearly about this subject. Maybe you lack training, or maybe you're too emotional about the issue...I have no idea, and don't really care. Either way, the arguments you're making are circular, illogical, and a complete waste of time for both of us.
I'm going to end this discussion here, partly because I feel we're entering the realm of avoidance and goalpost-moving, and partly because my time is limited and I'd rather write new posts than debate old ones.
Presumably, you feel you've made a good showing here. Perhaps some people who stumble on this thread will agree with you.
Phila:
Thanks for the debate. I agree we've taken it as far as we should.
Daisym
Post a Comment