Town Square

Post a New Topic

Global Warming Doubts are Increasing Among Scientists

Original post made by Greg, Southgate, on Dec 20, 2007

Although this probably hurts my cause to promote safe and green nuclear power, I can only be honest about it. An increasing number of reputable sicentists are expressing their doubts about the current hysterial of global warming.

Of particular note is the intimidation factor involved:

"Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," Paldor wrote. "

Web Link


Comments (59)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by hopeful
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 20, 2007 at 5:02 pm

II think we all need to question this global warming movement with a little more vigor.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Joan
a resident of Stanford
on Dec 20, 2007 at 5:29 pm



1 Global warming has become a religious tenet like creationism, it provides a pulpit, actually a cathedral for Gore( maybe he had a late life crisis about never finishing divinity school, he never finished law school either so its a twofer)

2 The other dynamic is money. On the one hand the transfer of massive amounts of wealth with many people positioned to pocket a transfer fee.
3 At the micro level scientist see it as a way of funding their careers.
I have seen many scientists salivate at the prospect of hitching their projects to the global warming band wagon, no matter how tenuous the link. Psychiatry and global waring etc.

3 Those who never gave up on the dream of centrally planned economies and social engineering ala communism. These guys are scary. A flash of the jack boot under the lab coat or judges robe.

All together these constitute a convenient orthodoxy, cross them at your peril.

I'd prefer a new edition of the SPANISH INQUISITION.





 +   Like this comment
Posted by Not black and white.
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 20, 2007 at 5:39 pm

No, I don't think it hurts the cause at all. I think the vast majority of us who haven't been hoodwinked by the fear mongering still think that it can't hurt to be as clean as possible on our planet.

It isn't an either/or.

We have already cleaned up our nation so much with such great results in the quality of water, air, water life etc that we have proof that we can do it voluntarily without raising unemployment and lowering our GDP. All without handing over control to a body of nations...3/4 of whom do not elect their leadership.

So, I am still all for nuclear. Just for the right reasons, not because I think that humans are causing the earth to warm...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jarred
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 20, 2007 at 6:15 pm

It's very gratifying to see that there are other Palo Altans who dare to question the dogmatism of the Global Warming zealots. Joan has it exactly right.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by joe
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 20, 2007 at 8:52 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by maddening
a resident of Professorville
on Dec 20, 2007 at 9:00 pm

It makes me made to hear people like Joe that dont have the brain power to open there minds to other possibilities. There is no reason to completely shut down another line of thought that is completely within reason. Joe, you need to explore other beliefs and not shut down anything that goes against them.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Julie
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Dec 20, 2007 at 9:02 pm

Why can't we just agree that global warming is not a settled issue, then build both solar and nuclear plants, just to be green, in case?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 20, 2007 at 11:52 pm

A few facts:

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member created this report. Does that ring a bell for anyone, especially since that committee has been a stalwart defender of the "global warming is bunk" crowd. Really, one would think that those who are pushing this agenda would look at the *weight* of evidence contrary to their *beliefs*.

What's even more astounding is that many of the scientists quoted in the article appear to have their minds made up, just like those they criticize. The big problem - related to how scientific theories become established (read Kuhn) is that they are FAR, FAR outnumbered by scientists who disagree with them, as well as a LOT MORE evidence to their minority opinions than they care to admit.

There is ALWAYS ferment in science; that's what science is all about. Theories have to be falsifiable to be considered scientific. Many of these single-date-point "theories" are not that ; this has been pointed out over and over in peer review.

What astounds me further is that those who mostly disagree with the human influence in warming want to do almost NOTHING to stop the human pollution of our planet.

Regarding the latter, I could care less about where there is human influence on warming, or not. I'm tired of thousands of untested chemicals entering the human environment, as well as other environmental atrocities committed in the name of profit.

One NEVER sees the anti-warming crowd talk about this; it's VERY revealing of their motives, and even more revealing about what the world would be like if the concern over human pollution of our planet was somehow stricken from human consciousness. Well, the latter is NOT going to happen - so the libertarians, and minority *fringe* in this debate can wail all they want.

Humans are going to clean up their act - one way or another, inconvenient, or not. That's the way it is; get used to it.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 21, 2007 at 4:23 am

And the pro warmies are pure at heart because they refuse to cash any paycheck that can be traced back to someone benefiting from scarcity? Tell me about the science behind the "urban heat island 'correction factors'", bucky. Tell me about the twist to fit. Tell me about the fortunes to be made in rights trading, much winding up in the Gore portfolio.
Pollution control is not a new thing - my first engineering jobs a half century ago were in air pollution control,and the first anti smoke laws were almost 300 years agom in London.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ysabel de Castile
a resident of another community
on Dec 21, 2007 at 5:25 am


What are you talking about Joan? Global warming is real, Arhnold Strudelmaker says so and I feel he would know because he is a real man. We need to protest corporations who are harming the environment and we must all pay for carbon credits to offset our exhaling of CO2. This is the only honest way to cure the pain the earth is feeling from our presence.

Peace


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 21, 2007 at 7:59 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 21, 2007 at 8:00 am

There is always debate in Science but that doesn't mean there isn't a consensus whether the planet is warming. As to the rate of sea rise or the importance of which gas to the greenhouse effect, there is and should be debate.

Web Link



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter
a resident of another community
on Dec 21, 2007 at 8:06 am

Mike, you got it. What I have trouble understanding is why the anti-warming people are also trying to block the reduction in substances that are harmful to us -- as part of the environment. Working to reduce harmful emissions can have several benefits: human health and well-being through cleaner air, land, and water; reduced use of finite resources; creation of new technologies that spawn new industries and new jobs; oh, yes, and a reduced dependence on others to supply our fuel needs.
Many very large corporations are getting on the bandwagon, they are finding that more newer efficient manufacturing process and environmental controls make bottom-line sense.

Thanks for your clarity on this subject.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 21, 2007 at 10:01 am

Seems like the hysteria is mutating. We are moving from CO2 to "untested chemicals".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 21, 2007 at 10:12 am

Wray: the only hysteria I see is coming from the naysayers, who are just to darned attached to their lifestyles to deal with inconvenient truths.

Empty rhetoric will get you nowhere, and it certainly won't change the current, dominant paradigm in this matter.

I await the *overwhelming* weight of your evidence contrary to current thinking on global warming. Until then, turn down the heat.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Oklahoma is OK
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 21, 2007 at 10:28 am

Greg, you crack me up. Did you follow that link? Do you know who Inhofe is? Too, much. Thanks for the belly laugh. Now back down to our warming planet.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg
a resident of Southgate
on Dec 21, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Oklahoma,

Sure I know who Inhofe is. He has been leading the charge in congress against the global warming hysteria. There are a number of top flight scientists who have joined ranks with him on this issue. Would you prefer that I believe that Al Gore has some credibility? Or that I reject all those scientists who have joined ranks with Gore?

The problem with the warming advocates is that many of their 'solid' data get shot down within a year or two of it being published (or the trend changes in direction). I, personally, think climate is way to complex to predict.

If you want to be safe, though, you should support nuclear power.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by joan
a resident of Stanford
on Dec 21, 2007 at 3:49 pm



Global warming has stopped. See this article from the NEW STATESMAN its a reputable English weekly link Web Link

Will Gore claim credit or will he have to give his % of the Nobel prize back.

The backlash has started against the irrational hysteria, I can hear the giant sucking sound as those investment dollars are withdraw, oh well it was other peoples money anyway-- whats next-ask-- Echelon.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jarred
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 21, 2007 at 6:12 pm

It would be funny, if it weren't so sad, that the strongest argument the Warmies can come up with seems to be "we can't think of any other reason for climate change besides CO2". This wins the award for the weakest inferential method since "I heard voices that told me it was so" (which is actually the Warmies second strongest argument, with the voices being mostly those of Al Gore and the MSM).

That being said, I'm no bigot--Warmies are just as entitled to their religion as Scientologists or Pentecostalists. What Warmies are not entitled to, however, is to the expectation that rational people must take them seriously, or sacrifice the comforts of civilization to indulge the fervent misanthropism and self-hatred of the eco freaks.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg
a resident of Southgate
on Dec 21, 2007 at 6:18 pm

joan,

Thanks for the article. We are left with specific measurements, and they can contradict each other. However, we are also left with trends. If the trends flatten or reverse, then what are we left with, other than semi-ignorance?

Al Gore, and his sycophants, seem to know the TRUTH, but what is the reality? Can anybody know, for sure?

Just to be safe, in case Gore is right, we need to build as many nuclear plants as possible, and as soon as possible.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 21, 2007 at 9:10 pm

Pathetic, It's convenient that the "New Stateman" (another shill for corporate irresponsibility) article neglected to mention that climate change is *non-linear*. That's BASIC to climate change.

Like I said above )which bears repeating in the sea of unsophisticated, non-scientific, sophistry promulgated by the naysayers on global climate change:

"What's even more astounding is that many of the scientists quoted in the article appear to have their minds made up, just like those they criticize. The big problem - related to how scientific theories become established (read Kuhn) is that they are FAR, FAR outnumbered by scientists who disagree with them, as well as a LOT MORE evidence to their minority opinions than they care to admit.

"There is ALWAYS ferment in science; that's what science is all about. Theories have to be falsifiable to be considered scientific. Many of these single-date-point "theories" are not that ; this has been pointed out over and over in peer review."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Albert
a resident of Professorville
on Dec 22, 2007 at 2:43 am

Watch out when someone is as adamant about the 'vast majority of scientists' arguments. Not too long ago, the overwhekming majority of scientists believed that DNA or RNA was required to drive infectious diseases, then the prion was discovered.

Global warming (as an immediate danger to human kind) is either real or it is false. It is not a popularity contest among scientists, neither will it be decided by the true belief systems of various scientists (especially those with agendas). Most accepted theories, that eventually fail, are initially attacked by the minority of scientists who are willing to stick their necks out.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 22, 2007 at 8:48 am

Maybe the warmies should move to Oklahoma when the drought set in. I understand Oklahoma had a different name in the 1930's.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 22, 2007 at 11:58 am

"Most accepted theories, that eventually fail, are initially attacked by the minority of scientists who are willing to stick their necks out."

Anonymous:
You mean, like Lamark's ideas, and the rest? Guess where the global warming meme started? You guessed it, among a small group of scientists.

You really need to read the work of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn,[portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

The bottom line here is that profound changes are going to be made in the way our species interacts with and uses the environment. That is going to cost some inconvenience. Get used to it, and adapt, like a good Darwinian citizen.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by hang on
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Dec 22, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Mike -

You yourself need to read Popper and Kuhn. They do not explain what science is all about. They discuss certain evolutions of thought.

But more than that, by what authority do you judge scientists and engineers? You have explained that you have no scientific or engineering background. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Not helpful to those of us genuinely interested in learning about potential climate change.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Barney Morgan
a resident of Mountain View
on Dec 22, 2007 at 12:15 pm

"Not helpful to those of us genuinely interested in learning about potential climate change."

But you need to have an open mind to learn.

The debate is over, right?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Albert
a resident of Professorville
on Dec 22, 2007 at 12:24 pm

"You mean, like Lamark's ideas, and the rest? Guess where the global warming meme started? You guessed it, among a small group of scientists."

Mike, except in this case Margaret Thatcher created the fuss. Yes, she had a science background, but her beef was with coal miners. She wanted to use new nuclear plants as leverage against the miners. Surely, you must know this.

There was a lot of concern, and funding, for the coming ice age in the 1970s. Mrs. Thatcher turned that one around. Sometimes she was just a little over the top.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by joe
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 22, 2007 at 1:09 pm

I have an open mind. I believe 2+2 might equal 5. That's what you mean by an open mind, right? It has a hole in it?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 22, 2007 at 1:20 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tomás de Torquemada
a resident of Stanford
on Dec 22, 2007 at 2:51 pm


Ysabel de Castile Web Link


It has been a while, ahh remember the warmth of the auto da fe Web Link those were the days no?

I enjoyed the humor of your post, in fact it would be refreshing to have more humor around global warming.

I suspect that Al Gore is confusing his menopausal hot flashes with a global condition.

And how did his son get that prius to go over 100MPH for his DUI arrest?

The article from the NEW STATESMAN I linked is particularly interesting because it is a distinctly left- wing publication

Happy Christmas

Joan




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Albert
a resident of Professorville
on Dec 22, 2007 at 5:05 pm

Mike, you cannot be serious about paradigm shifts (Kuhn) regarding global warming! A paradigm shift is not just based on a theory; if must also be backed up with reproducible data. That is hardly the case with global warming scenarios. What we have here is a bandwagon effect, with various people jumping on with various sets of data that, by and large, are one-offs, and either not reproducible, or just no attempt to reproduce being made.

An example would be the Atlantic conveyor hysteria of a couple of years ago. Al Gore liked to use this notion for his propaganda. It was based on study by Bryden (Harry L. Bryden et al.. Slowing of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation at 25° N. Nature 438, 655-657, 1 December 2005.) which purported to show that thermohaline effects were reduced by 30%, and a new ice age might be around the corner for northern Europe. It made headlines for months. Today, we do not hear about this effect very much, becasue it has been challenged ( Quirin Schiermeier. Nature 439, 256-260).

We were told that Antaactic ice was diminishing; instead, it is increasing.

Alarmist rhetoric, and headlines, does not a fact make.

If Kuhn was still alive, Mike, he would probably laugh at your invocation of his name to support global warming. At this point, it is just a mish mash of stuff that is being used to alarm for political reasons.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 22, 2007 at 9:13 pm

Albert, what's funny about this is that you obviously have not read Kuhn! IN no way do I use Kuhn to support global warming theories, but rather to point out the evolutionary process that scientific theory engenders. I brought this up because the small minority who think that global warming isn't here, or coming, use a relative few data points to say they're right. they (like you) deny that the global warning folks might be correct.

IN could be that global warming theories are wrong, but what you and those who agree with you are missing are the important implications of global warming theory - and the change it engenders - on the way to being completely right, or somewhat modified by the *weight* of future evidence.

Please, read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" [portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sean
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 23, 2007 at 9:41 am

Here are a few basic questions for all sides in this global warming debate:

1. Has the troposhperic temperature, measured by satellite, increased in the past three decades? Note: I keep hearing various answers, such as "no", "yes", "a little bit".

2. What is the actual effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on tropospheric temperature? Note: I have heard that there is an effect, but that it may be much lower than previously estimated.

3. In order for the seas level to rise significantly, either the Greenland or Antarctic (or both)ice mass needs to decrese. Is this happening? Note: I have heard that Antarctic ice mass is increasing and that Greenland is stable or increasing. I have also heard the opposite.

4. What is the economic costs for assuming that global warming is a serious issue, even if proven wrong, and acting to reverse the effect? Note: I have heard all kinds of answers, from "our world-wide economy will benefit" to "the world's economy will fall into a disatrous downward spiral".

Rather than endless public debate, how about some straight-forward answers to these, and other basic questions? We, the public, are constantly being alarmed by scenarios, but we really need answers to basic questions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 23, 2007 at 11:16 am

I would add to the reading program, "Scientific Irrationalism-Origins of a Postmodern Cult" by David Stove. He discusses the famous irrationalists: Popper, Lakatos, Kuhn and Feyerabend.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Terry
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 23, 2007 at 11:43 am

Less we drive too far off the cliff here, reading and discussing philosophy of science books won't do much to help us figure out global warming. It might help us think a little more critically about what it means when somebody writes "The majority of scientists agree..." or "As reported in the respected journal Nature..." But IMHO "was Popper/Kuhn an irrationalist" or "what is the meaning of scientific knowledge" don't do a lot to illuminate what we should do (or not do) next.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 23, 2007 at 12:15 pm

It would be nice if the Warmies would, with their own program, demonstrate the change in warming that each discrete step will make if fully implemented. If we do all they demand but nothing changes, what then? We will have wasted trillions to no purpose.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 23, 2007 at 12:39 pm

Wray, first, read the Structuralists and then Derrrida. Then, you might have a clue about what post-modernism really means. Of course, it makes no difference to you that Popper's description of the enterprise of science is pretty much embedded into the mainstream. Stop googling and start reading.

Walter, Incremental measurement defies the *non-linear* aspects of climate change. You're not looking at the big picture. Sean, same for you. Again, we're talking about a *weight* of overwhelming evidence that has made it past peer review.

As of now, the burden is on those do discover new evidence that is *overwhelming* re: what we do know about climate change, and pollution.

I am asking anyone who opposes the most agreed-on scenarios re: warming, to please show me how the overwhelming *weight* of those studies, and projections, are mostly wrong.

Until then, you're all whistling in the wind.

Last, what astounds is the continuing, *fundamental* misunderstanding about the project of science, and the misuse of that *misunderstanding* to forward an agenda.

In fact, Terry, it IS necessary to understand the foundations of science (not as a scholar, but as a citizen), before one can make refutational (to coin a word0 statements about how science is *wrong* about this or that finding.

At *least*, someone, anyone, go crib Wikipedia on Popper, assuming you don't have time, or are too lazy to learn - it will serve well.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sean
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 23, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Mike, please answer the questions I posed, above. I don't really care how many scientists think one way or the other, but I like honest answers to honest questions.

I am agnostic on this issue, but you are a believer, Mike. Defend your stance, with specific answers to specific basic questions. You don't need philosophy to answer these questions...just facts.

If the answer to question # 1 is "no", then there is no global warming, period. That's why I call it a basic question.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Terry
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 23, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Mike, you are a hoot - I hope you enjoy writing your posts as much as I chuckle when reading them. You are so full of yourself, it is like self-parody sometimes (or should I say: the *fundamental* point of your *naysayer* argument is like *self-parody*) ;-)

You can argue all you like about the foundations of science - I finished off my thesis on Foucault's view of knowledge 25 years back and am not that interested in revisiting it all ;-)

The main point by many of the "naysayers," as you like to ridicule those who disagree with you (on this and lots of other threads - interesting), is that there may not be as settled a view as we would like, about another of the above questions, given some of the costly alternatives that are being discussed. Sean asks some good fundamental questions in this vein.

You point to the "overwhelming weight of evidence" (scary - reminds me of your infamous "23 well-designed library studies"!) but the whole point of the thread is that maybe enough evidence isn't in yet and the data points are not all consistent. So, we don't have to agree or disagree with the warming hypothesis - we can withhold judgment, and dramatic action, until more data, analysis, and proposed actions come in.

My guess is the world is warming up; and that it makes sense to do some of the things that are proposed, and maybe more as time goes on. But we need to continue to take our time on this - it's a marathon, not a sprint, and the stakes are worth the trouble.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 23, 2007 at 8:16 pm

Perhaps we should throw virgins into active volcanos and stir cauldrons of newts' eyes.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 24, 2007 at 10:39 am

Terry, Methinks you chuckle too much, but it's gratifying to know that I make a difference in your life. :)

I hope you get the reference re: your posted (and somewhat masked) post above, apologizing for a rather incomplete knowledge about the philosophy of science. You haven't read Kuhn, have you? And certainly not Popper, not that it makes a difference to those who think they can spout about data points and their relevance to science, as they concoct their own, half-baked theories about whatever they don't agree with.

Foucault? You mean the philosophy of "Social Science" dude, right? Yeah, the guy who thought what scientists said about the dangers of AIDS was nonsense. (clue: I'm being coy here). That one cost him his life. (btw, you're talking to a guy who has read almost everything Foucault has written [what a *grand* waste of time!]

And, oh, btw, Foucault learned a lot from Kuhn. You should read him, too. That would help you understand the weak arguments made about scientific "evidence" that the anti-warming folks want to chatter about here.

I love debating about French intellectuals, mostly because they're such a lightweight bunch, on balance - relative to so many other out there. Now, if we're talking about Proust, or Montaigne, some REAL French intellectuals, with timeless insights - that's another story. They at least have something to say, compared to the blowhard, pop-star, always-on-the-front-page-of French postmodernist set (sect?) Derrida? Foucault? Lacan? Gimme a break! Nothing but a colossal waste of intellect, and many, many, overworked graduate student's and lit crit conferee's time. Pure junk, most of it. Why didn't they stop at Nietzsche, or Heidegger, Lewis Carroll, etc. - that, instead of the mindless regurgitation of old ideas under the rubric of their lame "postmodernism" - all driven by the French press. Really, really mindless stuff, dripping with pretension.

Now that we have that settled...

For someone who purports to understand how scientific theory evolves, and how we ALL profit from that - no matter the turns that the process takes - you seem to have a religious dedication to avoiding the fact (yes, fact) that there is a prepoderance fo evidence that supports global warming.

But you like to hedge your bets by saying "my guess is that the world is warming up"...and then suggest, contrary to every nation on earth (except ours) and the *massive* weight of scientific evidence that something needs to be done soon, that we shouldn't be too concerned now (e.g. "it's a marathon, not a sprint"). Huh?

And you did say you wrote your thesis on Foucault, right? It shows, because you appear to be putting together another one of Foucault's famous subjective (really, an understatement) rants.

About the library studies, show me evidence contrary to their conclusions - or keep guessing about the imaginary findings that don't exist. Or, is that something else you want to create a Foucaultian subjective thesis about? :)




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 25, 2007 at 5:45 am

Mike, tell us about the urban heat island correction, outrider elimination and irrepeatability. Lyinf science in the "Public interest" ala et al and Sagan.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 26, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Walter, there are some data points that appear to contradict the *weight* of countervailing evidence in favor of global warming. That said, we are moving on the weight of evidence, because that's what the *large majority* of scientists are staking their reputations on.

There were some data points in the early days of AIDS that seemed to contradict the weight of evidence re: the real cause of that disease. We went with the weight of evidence, and have has some self-correction since, but the early *weight* of scientific work was mostly correct.

Of course, science being the process that it is, there may be changes in how, why, or even "if" global warming is happening. When and if we see a movement in that direction, then humans and governments will alter their behavior.

Until that happens, making data point statements as if they're representative of a paradigm shift is futile, and a pure indicator of ignorance about the way that science works.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 27, 2007 at 1:59 am

When a "scientist" has to admit that his assertions have been demonstrated false, a fact he concealed by refusing to release underlying data, then he has shown the folly of allowing policy to be made based on secret research. Tell us about the ozone hole over Kennebunkport, Mike.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 27, 2007 at 2:11 am

Walter, Shananigans are a part of every research endeavor, but that's at the margin. I want to see you wiggle out of the fact that the VAST weight of evidence supports warming - not to mention the vast majority of scientists.

I do enjoy your data points, but they do not a theory make.

I suggest keeping to the terse aphorisms, they're a lot more pithy, and...well..."you".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 27, 2007 at 5:35 am

Hansen is central to the warmie arguments and his data has been shown to be an artifact. When the correction factors, adjustments, cherry picking or whatever you call them are greater than the observed effect you are just guessing. I still wait for a response to my challenge.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 27, 2007 at 9:15 am

Walter, I don't make scientific paradigms, peer-review scientific organizations do. Like I said before, if the evidence you sight appears to reasonable scientists - added to additional data - to overturn findings that have developed over more than two decades, then ideas and action around the warming issue will evolve. That's how science works.

That said, I'm taking bets that there will be some alteration to the theory (as there is with most, large-scale macro-scientific theories, but that it's main tenets will hold.

Again, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of science exhibited by those who think that random data points - no matter how compelling - would *overturn* a theory that has such an astounding weight of evidence in its favor.

btw, Hansen's "artifact" - as you call it - appears not to be a universal truth, with warming outside the US showing FAR among normal levels.

With all this, another fundamental misunderstanding by the anti-warmies in this forum is that climate is *non-linear*.

Please, read Kuhn, and Popper. Do the work; resist temptation for easy answers.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 27, 2007 at 9:25 am

Mike - there is too much money invested in warming to expect honest science. Anti manmade warming threatens too many rice bowls for science to discipline themselves with the methodology science developed to evaluate. Read my challenge and explain what is wrong with it. You need to read Hoffer.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 27, 2007 at 9:38 am

Walter, I've read Hoffer, quote him quite a bit, and have referred you to his "true believer dictum, to which (on this issue) you resonate perfectly.

On this issue, your *opinion* (which is, after all, in a very fundamental way, what we are really talking about) doesn't matter a twit. You are circling the walls of Jericho with a small band of true believers, with teeny data points in hand that don't even come close to the absolute audio assault that a trumpet could make.

"No one has a right to happiness" - Eric Hoffer We should realize that, and learn how to live it - or we're going to find out soon enough just how correct Hoffer is.

Walter, what are you doing to stop global pollution?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 27, 2007 at 2:50 pm

My opinion is my own, based on my own observations. I may have been the first challenger of "Nuclear winter" and "the ozone hole over Kennebunkport." 50 years ago I was testing pollution control equipment in a chemical plant, and my current contribution is to protest irrational and useless eyewash projects.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Harry
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Dec 27, 2007 at 5:28 pm

"my current contribution is to protest irrational and useless eyewash projects" = gadfly


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg
a resident of Southgate
on Dec 27, 2007 at 6:07 pm

"Again, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of science exhibited by those who think that random data points - no matter how compelling - would *overturn* a theory that has such an astounding weight of evidence in its favor."

Mike, the problem with your argument is that the majority of current scientific opinion on global warming is a mile wide and an inch deep with "random data points". That is why those points are getting knocked off on a regular basis.

One of the posters, above, suggested that you actually try to defend the various points, or at least answer specific fundamental points, instead of making generic statements about scientific philosophies.

Until you do this, you will be seen, justifiably, like a young Marxist that is full of himself. You need to take a lesson from Jack Webb: "Just the facts, Mamm"



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 27, 2007 at 6:50 pm

" the problem with your argument is that the majority of current scientific opinion on global warming is a mile wide and an inch deep with "random data points""

Oh, you mean like all the data points that support quantum theory, and other peer-reviewed and *accepted* scientific knowledge (that evolves slowly, building on what came before).

Of course, there's always the crackpot physicist who challenges the main tenets of relativity theory, but we know where that has led.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg
a resident of Southgate
on Dec 27, 2007 at 7:18 pm

Mike,

Try understanding what you read. I am referring to global warming not quantum physics, which was a theory that was intially challanged, but then gained momentum, slowly, as the facts became irrefutable.

The global warming theory, promoted by Margaret Thatcher as a political ploy against coal miner unions, then extended by political grants of $$$ to promote the cause, is hardly the same thing. Mrs. Thatcher may have helped win the Cold War, but she is not Einstein.

Indeed, scientific consenus SHOULD develop slowly around a SOUND theory, but this is not the case with global warming. There is way too much hysteria around this issue. We should, of course, develop nuclear power plants, but this does not mean that global warming is a proven theory.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 27, 2007 at 8:13 pm

"scientific consenus SHOULD develop slowly around a SOUND theory, but this is not the case with global warming. "

That's what's happening right now. Unless one want to accept an amateur's definition of what's "sound" - or listen to >5% of the scientists out there looking for press, who say they're right.

Get used to it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 28, 2007 at 9:46 am

Your "less than sign" is reversed just like your logic.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 28, 2007 at 10:58 am

< 5%

Argue on the merits, and please do read Popper


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R Wray
a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 28, 2007 at 3:16 pm

When someone starts out with the premises that sense perception is invalid and that we can't know anything, I take him at his word and don't read him. I've read about Popper and that's enough. There's enough positive stuff to read.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 28, 2007 at 3:29 pm

"sense perception is invalid"

Can you see a quanta? That's what Popper is getting at. I fear that our interpretive skills may be too literal, without the ability to do even the most middling extrapolations. Keep reading Rand, she's balm for those who want easy answers.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Mixx, Scott's Seafood replacement, opens in Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 14 comments | 3,645 views

To Cambodia With Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 3,121 views

Early Campaign Notes: City Council
By Douglas Moran | 15 comments | 1,575 views

Life in fast forward
By Jessica T | 3 comments | 1,514 views

Vikram Chandra's "Geek Sublime" and 10/3 event at Kepler's
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 13 views