I want to thank Peter Wehner for his gracious remarks about my response to his pieces about climate change and the responsibility of conservatives to take a constructive approach to the issue. There is, as he said, much we agree upon, and I continue to be impressed by Peter’s seriousness of purpose and his desire to conduct this discussion on a high plane where hysteria and neo-religious rhetoric about global warming are out of place.
However, I also want to briefly respond to two of his points.
The first is to say he’s right that skeptical conservatives need not respond to global warming zealots with the same level of vituperation they have been subjected to by the other side. I should not have implied that responding in kind to unreasoning attacks was justifiable. There is no need for those who do not subscribe to the catechism of environmental extremists to sink to their level when it comes to trying to anathematize their foes.
Second, I want to note, as Peter has done, that though most scientists seem to think that a) there is no doubt about both the nature of the threat of climate change; b) the responsibility of humans for the problem; and c) the need for us to adopt stringent measures in response, many respected members of the scientific community still do not subscribe to these views. One such, Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has published extensively on the issue. His persuasive writings (one of which can be found here), along with others who share his views, have given skeptics an informed leg to stand on with respect to the controversy.
I will leave it to Professor Lindzen and his colleagues to argue about the science. But so long as that debate is ongoing, it is likely that many of us who perceive the bias behind many environmental extremists and can foresee no practical result from the damaging and draconian measures they propose to avert the alleged danger, will continue to be skeptical about the issue.
You fail to mention that most of the scientists who are member of the cult of cliamte change/global warming are not climatologists. While brilliant physicists or chemists may be … well, brilliant in their area of expertise I doubt you would agree to have them perform brain surgery on you in lieu of a neurosurgeon. Their stance on global warming should be taken in similar vein. nOTOH, majority of climatologists question the cultish premise of anthropogenic climate change.
You’re mistaken. In fact, exactly the opposite is true.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
This is a bogus and preposterous line of argument that only "Climatologists" and advanced degree specialists can really know for sure. I'm an engineer, and I am certain that there exists paltry evidence much below the threshold of confidence to affirm scientifically that AGW, i.e., "greenhouse gases", are even a remote threat to rising temperatures. I have read exhaustively on the subject, but the early stages of my research produced skepticism; a lot smelled fishy. n nIntellectuals and academics, in fact, use their abstract abilities to "make stuff up" all the time. They are more adept and adroit of creating "parallel universes" and phantasmagorical worlds, and many simply hate objective reality. Many are insecure and immature, not having the benefit of the rough and tumble and hard knocks of the Real World. And of course, they perceive themselves as the "natural aristocracy" and seek to promulgate economic and social systems that promote their ascendency, importance, AND dominance. n nAs George Orwell said, so succinctly: "Some things are so ridiculous, that only an intellectual could believe them".
Well said.
Harry, I think you have really hit on something about many scientists. I happen to love science, and have a lot of respect for scientists in general, but agree with your view that many can dream up "phantasmagorical worlds" (great phrase!) and live in their own reality. Great annecdotal support for that comes from watching any cable show about the latest theories in physics or cosmology. They are truly out there. Now, I realize that as a non-scientist I'm supposedly forbidden from weighing in this, but I don't buy that. True, I can't weigh in on the math behind the equations, but there is much in scientific theories that is assessable from an educated and logical perspective. There is a sort of tyranny of science where just by saying that a scientists believe X, any one who doubts it is a Luddite.
I appreciate the link to a critique of Lindzen, which I will read, but the battle between you and moderate Guy over which sides has more PhDs and Climatologists is misplaced. First, science is not and should not be consensus driven. It is not a poll or a vote. Ask Galilleo. Second, (and I'll go out on a limb here), I don't think "Climatology" is a real science. You make it sound like a biologist is arguing with a physicist–the assumption being one really knows nothing about the other science. Climatology is not a fundamental science in the same way that Physics, Chemistry or Biology is. It is new for one. Also, it is an application of physics to a particular field. I strongly suspect that any good physicist who has applied himself to the study of the atmosphere is highly qualified to weigh in on this subject. I also strongly suspect that "Climatology" was invested to keep out those nosy skeptics.
I agree with you. You might want to look at Steve McIntyre's blog (climate audit) where he eviscerates most AGW claims. McIntyre is a geologist but he has a fine grasp of the mathematics needed for the climate 'science.' He was the first to discover that Michael Mann's 'hockey stick' mathematics can produce a hockey stick when random numbers are fed into them (and that's been replicated by others). Some scientific proof of global warming – random numbers – I suppose that's why they changed the name to 'Climate Change' since all manner of weather (i.e. random numbers) is consistent with AGW.
Just to amplify my own post above in response to someone else's, IS CLIMATOLOGY A REAL SCIENCE? I suspect that any really good physicist who studies the climate is highly qualified to weigh in on this subject, even if his degree is not in "Climatology". Since when have then even been giving degrees in that field? Is it really that different from applied physics as Chemistry is to Physics? And lets be honest, much of Chemistry is based on Physics. Does this mean that we should ignore what Physicists say about Chemistry, and the structure of elements because their PhD is not in "Chemistry"? I think there is some intentional sophistry going on here with the insistence that only "Climatologist" can talk about "global warming". n nSecond, since when do we take polls of scientists to figure out things? And if we have to take a poll, doesn't that suggest that we don't really know and that we should be very, very skeptical about incurring massive expenses and changes of our entire lifestyle based upon a supposed consensus? This ain't the old Town Hall voting on whether to put up a stop sign on the corner . . .
I've probably said more than my share on this thread, but I have one more point: If even some scientists are deemed not qualified to discuss climate, then why should Peter Wehner or any non-scientist be allowed to make any comments on this at all? Peter has reviewed the science and finds it compelling. With respect, this HOLDS NO WATER AT ALL. Richard Lindzen, PhD, has reviewed the science and finds it weak. Why, Peter, should I believe you and not him? n n n
Because Richard Lindzen is a true outlier — one of a tiny handful (less than 5%) of climate scientists who remain skeptical about the basic conclusions that most of the earth's warming is due to human activity. n nWhy should you listen to Lindzen, instead of the other 95% of climate scientists? n n BTW, some of the most outspoken climate scientists are life-long Republicans (e.g. Kerry Emmanuel, Richard Alley)
Science has been politicized in service of a Leftist Agenda of central command and control of wealth redistribution. The argument is about economics and politics, not science, which, unlike ideologues, is inherently and quintessentially skeptical. n nAs to Peter Wehner and others, condescending know it all intellectual narcissism does not win friends or influence people. Some respect might work.
Once again, this is mostly beside the point. For non-scientists to argue over the science of climate change is futile. I daresay that hardly anyone (myself included) who has participated in this discussion is really qualified to assess the science. The real problem is that the climate change issue has been seized upon for political purposes by people who have no understanding of or interest in the science behind it. For as long as I can recall, the political and economic thrust of the environmental movement has led AWAY from democratic accountability and market economics, and TOWARD bureaucratic control and centralized economic planning. These preferences have nothing whatever to do with the science of climate change. They're part and parcel of the Left's longstanding jihad against liberty and capitalism. It is not by accident (as "Pravda" used to put it) that so many of thepeople who support Occupy Wall Street are also climate change alarmists. It's a true marriage of convenience.
I am disappointed by Peter Wehner but he is free to believe whatever he wants. I amde the exactly opposite road – from believing in AGW to skeptic. I am skeptic, no a denier. I am no scientist even if I have a good scientific basic education. I read arguments from both camps and the skeptics are much more convincing in my eyes.
Whatever one may feel about the suitability of "non-scientists" participating in AGW debates, each and every one of us can and must take note of those aspects of the AGW Movement– for it truly is a "movement" that spins out doctrine, dogma and political agendas and not simply a scientific study– that are within our knowledge as students of human nature. n nAll of us can draw upon our personal experience of the effects of literally trillions of dollars of government and corporate money that pours into the AGW Movement and its associated affiliates– University researchers, government agencies, AGW think tanks, environmentalist groups et al. The corrupting influence of such enormous amounts of wealth will have its predictable effects. For example, the AGW Movement is fond of debunking and denouncing any study or scientist with any connection, no matter how tangential, with the hydrocarbon energy industry. Such scientists are "tools" or "paid stooges" of "Big Oil." This may be a very telling case of projection, where the AGW scientists are knowing tools for AGW Movement and assume that anyone who opposes them must, similarly, be working in the same way for oil companies or other threatened interests. n nMy point is that the amounts of money being thrown around by Big Government and Crony Capitalists with definite interests in the promotion of AGW (think "Solyndra") have so corrupted the entire scientific process in this particular field of study that the entire body of work is extremely suspect. No one needs a PhD or scientific degrees to know that when huge sums of cash are offered for a particular conclusion to be reached (and, conversely, when dissent of any kind from those conclusions result in job loss, ostracism and black listing), the result is completely unreliable. The manipulation and outright fabrication of data by AGW supporters is but the tip of proverbial iceberg (pardon the pun). n nSo whatever AGW supporters may say about the 99.99% of scientists who belong to the Movement, we all have many, many reasons to treat all such theories as extremely suspect and rife with error simply because the process itself has been hopelessly corrupted with vast sums of money. Until the religion of AGW can be suspended and the corruption ameliorated, there is no reason to pay the slightest attention to the shrieking visions of doom being promulgated.
TS_Alfabet–well said, and you might add that the Climate Gate emails strongly support the idea that the scientific process of vetting (on peer review journals, for example), might have been compromised. Even the alleged consensus might have been partially manufactured.
One strong objection to Peter Wehner's statements is the unwillingness of AGW proponets to share their data to see if their results can be replicated (which I think they can't be). Many of the leading actors of AGW have used all kinds of strategems to avoid data sharing with their critics. (Just read the second batch of Climategate e-mails.) If they are so sure of their science why are they so unwilling to share their data?
Gack! The American Physical Society (a bunch of physicists) now has a Topical Group on the Physics of Climate. It's one of 12 such groups. The reason for these kinds of division is that it is impossible to be expert at everything in the field of physics. Check it out. n nAs for validity of opinion, does it make sense to weight understanding of the data, analyses, theory, and underlying processes when evaluating a claim? Hmmm. Yes, yes it does. But if you don't rely on the weight of expert opinion, follow the evidence to the best of your ability. The evidence isn't about Mike Mann or Al Gore or Richard Lindzen. It's about patterns of warming that can be explained best by AGW (cooling stratosphere and nights warming faster than days on the surface, in contrast to "the sun did it", etc, etc).
Tobin still doesn't get it. Bias behind environmental extremists and draconian measures they propose are irrelevant. We need to focus on the core of the problem, not the fringe and not those extremists who occupy the fringe. The draconian measures proposed by extremists have no influence on the scientific facts, and they have no importance in developing an appropriate conservative response to the risk implied by rapidly increasing CO2 concentrations. It's intellectually lazy to pretend there's no problem until there are absolutely no dissenting voices. This laziness by the editorial leadership is why we conservatives have so much catching up to do on this serious issue.
This is a continuation. I suppose the thing you were pointing me to was the statement about Anthony Watts. I think it is: ' "Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant 'global warming' in the 20th century." Now, after Berkeley Earth's release, he claims to have never questioned that the Earth had warmed.' The criticism of instrumentation is not inconsistent with the notion that there has been warming. We cannot really tell from the instrumentation if the earth is warming. Other signs indicate it is, and most would agree, the earth has been warming since the 17th century. The question is whether anyof the recent warming is a natural deviation or not. Models used by AGW proponents say it is unnatural and due to human activity, but they won't share them or their data, and that is what I was addressing when I said I didn't think their resutls could be replicated. Any AGW therefore has got to be Mann-made.
So, would you, say, trust a podiatrist to perform your root canal? Dentists and podiatrists are both medically-trained physicians, right? n nWho would you consult about a lump in your chest? A proctologist? After all, he's an MD. n nLike it or not, modern medicine and geophysics alike are far too broad and deep for anybody to have thorough knowledge outside of their own specialty. Specialization has yielded enormous advances in knowledge — we benefit daily — but it means we turn to specialists for advice in their area of expertise.
That silly petition is literally run out of a barn in outside of Cave Junction, Oregon by a Arthur Robinson, a former scientist who specializes in writing about survival after nuclear war. n nRobinson's "Oregon Institute" consists of 7 faculty, including Robinson, two of his sons, and two others lists as "deceased." n n n The petition is open to anybody who claims to have a degree in any scientific field whatsoever. Nobody checks to see if that's even true. n nThe letter endorsing the petition went out over the signature of (the late) Frederic Seitz, at the time in his late 80's. Seitz is mostly famous for running the Tobacco Institute's scientific program to "prove" that smoking is harmless. n nWhy are so-called skeptics so gullible when it comes to swallowing this petition?
I appreciate the temperate tone of Michael T's response above. n nMichael correctly notes that n n"most scientists seem to think that a) there is no doubt about both the nature of the threat of climate change; b) the responsibility of humans for the problem; and c) the need for us to adopt stringent measures in response" n nBut it is misleading to state "many respected members of the scientific community still do not subscribe to these views." n nModern science is simply to broad to generalize about all "members of the scientific community." What matters in any speciality are the conclusions of those who specialize in a particular area of study. Among climate scientists — who actively research and publish in atmospheric science and closely related fields such as paleoclimatology and glaciology — the returns are in. Two studies found 97% in agreement, as Michael states. n nRichard Lindzen is, of course, a serious climate scientist, but he is among the tiny minority who continue to reject the consensus of his peers. n nIf 97% of oncologists said that your child had cancer and needed urgent treatment, but 3% told you not to worry, who would you bet on? The 97% or the 3%? n
Such an revealing comment from Tobin about Lindzen: n n"His persuasive writings . . . have given skeptics an informed leg to stand on with respect to the controversy." n nApparently, before Lindzen, skeptics had no "informed leg to stand on," and presumably were simply drawing conclusions about the science simply based on….what? Mistrust of environmentalists? Hatred of Al Gore? n nSo now Tobin has finally found one scientist, out of thousands, who lends support to his pre-determined view. n nDoes that sound like science to you? Sounds more reminiscent of the hand-picked "tobacco scientists" who gave the Tobacco Industry "an informed leg to stand on" when they argued — against mountains of evidence — that nicotine isn't addictive and doesn't cause cancer. Good luck with that.