Handbook for AGW sceptics

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

>Second - Galileo also had the balls to go against the established dogma.

Mmm Hmm. And where in my posts did I suggest that we stick with established dogma? You are fighting against something I did not say.

>Does anybody who has risen to the top on the basis of their theories want their theories to be proven wrong?

That would depend on their loyalty to the scientific method. Are they religious? Are they conservative? Are they liberal, for that matter? How much money are they making, now? Are they lawyers? (Each of those persons is highly likely to do whatever they can to protect the position they have-at any cost. If anyone knows that, its you.).

Indeed - lawyers are not paid to reveal the truth, they are paid to make sure their side wins regardless. As are oil company (and tobacco) executives.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[chasteh 0]

>Indeed - lawyers are not paid to reveal the truth, they are paid to make sure their side wins regardless. As are oil company (and tobacco) executives

Yep. Why do we have reason to suspect that they would do such a thing? Because there is clearly a benefit they would receive from having their view accepted. If the tobacco or oil executives can convince others that cigarettes or petroleum products are not harmful to your health or the planet, then they will have more business (thus, wealth). We have reason to suspect their position is jaded in that case.

[TomAiello 25]

The issue here is not the scientific debate about the actual process of global warming.

The issue is that a global warming "orthodoxy" has taken hold and stifles scientific inquiry for political reasons.

I don't really have a view about the science of global warming yet. And if real science continues to be stifled by the AGW orthodoxy, I'm unfortunately going to have a great deal of trouble actually seeing various expert opinions, to help me form my own thoughts.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[chasteh 0]

>The issue is that a global warming "orthodoxy" has taken hold and stifles scientific inquiry for political reasons

In that case you need to read my latest posts. I understand where the thread started, however, I am not the person who began the discussion about the scientific causes, am I?

>I don't really have a view about the science of global warming yet. And if real science continues to be stifled by the AGW orthodoxy, I'm unfortunately going to have a great deal of trouble actually seeing various expert opinions, to help me form my own thoughts

Yep. It is very hard to see through the nasty political ties that have been strengthened by the debate. It would be nice to have more information that everyone could accept, and then have everyone debate the issue from there. The trouble is, we just aren't getting to that point. Wait a minute, that sounds a lot like all the other political/sociological issues being discussed in this forum. No one is even willing to agree on what the truth is, let alone what we should do or feel about it.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

>Indeed - lawyers are not paid to reveal the truth, they are paid to make sure their side wins regardless. As are oil company (and tobacco) executives

Yep. Why do we have reason to suspect that they would do such a thing? Because there is clearly a benefit they would receive from having their view accepted. If the tobacco or oil executives can convince others that cigarettes or petroleum products are not harmful to your health or the planet, then they will have more business (thus, wealth). We have reason to suspect their position is jaded in that case.

In February 2007, The Guardian (UK) reported that American Enterprise Institute (AEI) was offering scientists and economists $10,000 each, "to undermine a major climate change report" from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). AEI asked for "articles that emphasise the shortcomings" of the IPCC report, which "is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science." AEI visiting scholar Kenneth Green made the $10,000 offer "to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere," in a letter describing the IPCC as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent."

The Guardian reported further that AEI "has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil, and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees," added The Guardian.

Sources:
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[chasteh 0]

Wow. I'll click the link after my shower here at 11 in the morning.

Hey, wait, aren't these all instances where capitalism ends up working against itself? Isn't there some clause stated in self-interested motives that requires us to remain rational? It really, really looks like these businesses are paying people to do otherwise. Uh oh.

[JackC 0]

Quote

I don't really have a view about the science of global warming yet. And if real science continues to be stifled by the AGW orthodoxy, I'm unfortunately going to have a great deal of trouble actually seeing various expert opinions, to help me form my own thoughts.

There are only 3 questions that need to be answered here.

1) is CO2 a greenhouse gas?
2) is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increasing?
3) does a system increase in temperature if you increase its capacity to retain heat?

If the answer to any of those questions is no, then we have nothing to worry about. If the answer is yes to all three then the mechanism for global warming is real and it is in effect.

All other scientific studies or theories or political footballs are just complications and have varying degrees of importance/relevance/hinderance. The basic science of GW is contained in those 3 simple questions.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Of course, the Establishment of which you write was the CHURCH, not scientists.

We're talking about an establishment.

I will quote Eisenhower's farewell speech, which you yourself recently cited wherein he warned:

Quote

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Some nice food for thought. However, I will start with the next paragraph, and highlight certain sections I believe were also prescient:

Quote

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

So Ike identified the influence of the Federal government - a political entity - on science.

Quote

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.

Here Ike said that the Feds, with their power, can therefore stifle research by failing to fund it and by demanding expected results or ignoring that which is not consistent with political aims.

Fundamentally, this was the bitch and snivel about Bush's admin, which I believe did have some merit.

But - Ike went on:

Quote

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.

This is my point.

Predicitions of global warming are "predictions." (Billvon's deleted post stated that science is focused on facts.) At this point, there is a paradigm of global warming. The loudest and most visible proponents accept no challenges.

The "establishment" to which I refer is the "scientific-technological elite" to which Ike referred. I believe that this danger should similarly not be discounted.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

There are only 3 questions that need to be answered here.

1) is CO2 a greenhouse gas?
2) is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increasing?
3) does a system increase in temperature if you increase its capacity to retain heat?

I'm sure there are more questions. Things like:

What factors contribute to global warming?
Are those factors under our control?
Can they be changed?
Is global warming undesirable?
Will the system stabilize itself, or become unstable in the long term?

The list goes on....


It seems to me that this is a massively complex topic, and that both sides are trying to make it seem simple--which is the mark of politics, as opposed to science. In politics, you make things seem very simple so that you can sell your position to the public. In science, it would help if there was a bit less political posturing, and a bit more critical thinking.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Predicitions of global warming are "predictions."

No kidding, Dick Tracy.

And measurements are measurements. Thus far the measurements are pretty much in line with (but not exactly the same as) the predictions. Which is not bad at all for a system as complex as 5 quadrillion tons of mixed gases in contact with 160 million square miles of water and 40 million square miles of mountains, deserts, plains, forests, prairies, etc., and given such additional variables as el Ninos.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

AGW fits so nicely into the modern feeling of humans being guilty and destroying the planet. The comparison to a new age Catholicism where humans are born with guilt is quite interesting.

That caught my attention.

Would you write more on that parallel you see? What do you see as the source of the 'guilt' -- being born into and using modern technology? Do you see it as a manifestation of anti-technology thinking/backlash or something else? Morality versus economics? Manufactured morality? Thanks.

It sounds, to me, like an interesting lens to view the connections between science/technology and policy through? Would like to read more of your thoughts on it.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

There are only 3 questions that need to be answered here.

1) is CO2 a greenhouse gas?
2) is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increasing?
3) does a system increase in temperature if you increase its capacity to retain heat?

I'm sure there are more questions. Things like:

What factors contribute to global warming?
Are those factors under our control?
Can they be changed?
Is global warming undesirable?
Will the system stabilize itself, or become unstable in the long term?

The list goes on....


It seems to me that this is a massively complex topic, and that both sides are trying to make it seem simple--which is the mark of politics, as opposed to science. .

The IPCC report is not simple at all.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>WHERE THE FUCK did I say that smoking is harmless?

Dude, calm down. I didn't say that you said smoking was harmless.

Quote

If you think that cigarette smoking does not negatively impact your health

Did you write this, or was it some OTHER billvon that we don't know about? Where did I say that smoking had no negative impact???

Quote

Cursing and putting things in all caps doesn't really advance your argument.

Then quit putting words in my mouth that I didn't fucking say.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,406]

>The issue is that a global warming "orthodoxy" has taken hold and stifles
>scientific inquiry for political reasons.

This is starting to sound like the 9-11 truther thing. "Why don't people want to learn the TRUTH about 9/11? Why are people suppressing the forensic investigation? Why was the steel all melted down before it was inspected? Why weren't the cockpit voice recorder tapes released?"

Of course, the 9/11 incident was one of the most investigated building collapses in history, and there are reams of reports on the physics of the collapse. But that doesn't fit with their conspiracy theory, so the reports are discarded or invalidated.

Likewise, the statement "climate change scientific inquiry is being stifled" simply has no basis in reality. Climate change is one of the most intensively studied parts of atmospheric and oceanic science, and over a billion dollars a year are spent on studying various aspects of either climate change or atmospheric/oceanographic sciences that can bear on climate change. There's an article every other issue of the Science and Nature journals, and indeed such journals have become the high-level 'battlegrounds' of climate change science.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Let me know when dropping an object will ALWAYS cause it to accelerate at 9.81m/s^2, and you will have a point.

When I'm standing still on the Earth's surface. And when your alter-ego hasn't filled it with helium.

Quote

You're funny when you try to discuss science.

Find those Koch postulates yet for guns, John?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[chasteh 0]

Bill said "if you think that...."

not "You think that......."

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Like JackC's link to a closed-system experiment as 'proof', you mean?

You said:

Quote

Let me know when adding 20ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere will ALWAYS cause a temperature increase of xC, ok?

And I gave you a link which demonstrates that CO2 is a greenhouse gas with an experiment that you can do yourself at home. You obviously think dropping apples proves Newton's laws then why doesn't the experiment in that link prove CO2 is a greehouse gas?

I have to wonder why you continue to bleat "show me the proof" when you have already decided that there is no proof that you will accept?

Where, pray tell, did I say that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas?

Try another strawman, Jack...that one isn't working.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,406]

So can you answer any of the questions about gravity? How fast does it propagate? Galileo's equations assume instantaneous propagation; how can that be? How does it propagate to begin with? Elementary particles? "Waves" in spacetime? Is it like electromagnetic radiation?

Again, since your assumption is that all this has been known for hundreds of years, and is conclusive, I assume you will have no problem answering those questions. After all, it's the law of gravity.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The "establishment" to which I refer is the "scientific-technological elite" to which Ike referred. I believe that this danger should similarly not be discounted.

There’s a conundrum in there. Do you want people who know what they’re talking about involved/heard/listened to in policy decisions or should everyone’s opinion and voice be weighted equally? (Of course, for the anarchists and really hard-core libertarians, there should be no policy decisions, so it’s a dismissible proposition.)

Do you want medical decisions made by “medical-elite” (aka physicians) or by the public? That’s one of the criticisms of single-payer.

Do you want skydiving decisions made by the “skydiving-elite” (who-ever they are exactly … never put myself in that category) or by the public?

Do you want operational military decision made by the “military-elite” (General Officers) or by the public?
There’s a popular term these days: the "strategic sergeant ." The flip side of that is one risks getting the “tactical General,” which modern information and communications technology can make true. (Now that’s a candidate for a micro-management nightmare, eh?)

Do you want firefighting done by “firefighting-elite” (firefighters) or the couch potato couple who spends more time fighting over the remote?

Do you want your HVAC repairs done by the “HVAC-elite” (folks who know what they’re doing) or someone else? (One can substitute any number of skill sets that can't be easily exported.)

Specialization has been pretty good for human civilization. And thank any multiple number of deities that someone wants to be a kindergarten teacher, cause I recognize my high probability for failing if I had to do that.

Do you want legal decisions made by the “legal elite” (juris doctors) or do you want to explain tort law to the public?
Oh, hold on … we do *that* … what’s special about that?
(A lawyer friend of mine in LA once recommended that if I was innocent, ask for a judge [if I had a choice], and if I was guilty, ask for a jury.)

For me, it comes down to a belief that democracy – or representative republic – functions better when the electorate is more informed. And the electorate is not dumb ... they may occasionally say dumb things & do dumb things - some more often than others, but people are not inherently stupid.

I'm not sure whether I see more dangers in the scenarios from Pres Eisenhower's speech or in anti-intellectualism, i.e., the dystopian vision of Mike Judge's Idiocracy.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

In February 2007, The Guardian (UK) reported that American Enterprise Institute (AEI) was offering scientists and economists $10,000 each, "to undermine a major climate change report" from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). AEI asked for "articles that emphasise the shortcomings" of the IPCC report, which "is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science." AEI visiting scholar Kenneth Green made the $10,000 offer "to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere," in a letter describing the IPCC as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent."

The Guardian reported further that AEI "has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil, and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees," added The Guardian.

Sources:
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute

How much is the Kyoto treaty going to make for some certain (*cough*Algore*cough*) companies, professor?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Second - Galileo also had the balls to go against the established dogma.

Mmm Hmm. And where in my posts did I suggest that we stick with established dogma? You are fighting against something I did not say.

I did not say that you suggested that we stick with established dogma. However, "dogma" - which is a definitive or established opinion or tenet - does have similarities with the AGW proponents. I prefer to call it "paradigm" versus dogma, since I think that there are distinct differences.

I'm not fighting against you.

Quote

>Does anybody who has risen to the top on the basis of their theories want their theories to be proven wrong?

That would depend on their loyalty to the scientific method. Are they religious? Are they conservative? Are they liberal, for that matter? How much money are they making, now? Are they lawyers? (Each of those persons is highly likely to do whatever they can to protect the position they have-at any cost. If anyone knows that, its you.)

Absolutely. I know this well. I have seen it firsthand and with my own eyes from people of every educational and socioeconomic background. Physicians, engineers, you name it.

Quote

A University professor, on the other hand, (especially if he is responsible for conducting research) is actively looking for those types of anomolies. Are you or mnealtx really one of those persons, or are you just sticking to dogma?

A university professor is also actively looking for grants and publication opportunities. I am not sticking to dogma - at least not deliberately. I do, however, identify that scientists, engineers, lawyers, politicians, Popes, etc., are human. And there is and will always be a group dynamic.

Quote

(It would be important to note here that it is quite dogmatic to say that something such as global warming does not exist or that it is not caused by co2 emissions-typically the latest move of those who used to simply deny global warming altogether [Mnealtx - feel free to totally misunderstand this one too. I made no claim about what I think about global warming here])

Well, it's your opinion. I think that AGW is a paradigm. I also believe that paradigms and dogmas are properly subjected to challenge, much as I believe that challengers are properly subject to challenge.

It's the free exchange of ideas and robust debate that is valuable.

Quote

>In the world of ideas and thought, there are those who control it. Hence, people are summarily identified by self-appointed arbiters as qualified or unqualified.

That falls in line with what other hard core anarchists say about groups like the illuminati. There is more to be said here to justify such a claim....

Of course. It's what people say about anything. I am not, however, referring to Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I am, however, saying that there certainly is a paradigm in favor of AGW. This can be subject to shift.


But with regard to trends, there is some stuff to chew on with regard to predictions. It is hypothesized that the earth's radiative balance is out of whack because of greenhouse radiative forcing and lagging ocean response. This was calculated to be an excess of .8 Watts per square meter around 200. (Hansen, J. et al. (2005), Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science, 308, 1431-1435.)

The increasing CO2 emissions of 20 ppm should have increased this absorption/emission deficit by .2 Watts per square meter. Considering ocean mixing, we should have seen a .25 degree C increase in global temperature since 2001.

Prior ups and downs have been seen. Decreases linked to tropical volcanoes and strong La Nina events, with peaks linked to strong El Nino events can be seen over the last 50 years.

The AGW theory has predicted increases in global temperature absent some dynamic change, such as volcanoes or El Nino/La Nina. Since 2001, these high amplitude changes have not occurred and not been linked to volcanoes.

Several papers have suggested a shift in climate since 2001 - globally. There is no identified cause of the halting in warming since 2001. IT will take time and more studies to confirm that global warming has halted - I understand and admit that.

Furthermore, it appears that while warming has halted, global cooling did not.

To reach any conclusions regarding the from this data is premature. Are we seeing a pause that we will come out of? Will global warming begin anew next year? IN ten years? In 50 years? We cannot say.

But - the science says we should expect an increase of .20 W per square meter assuming ocean mixing depth of 200 meters with a 20 ppm increase since 2000. This correlates to a .25C increase in temperature barring some supervening proximate cause that we understand and model.

The temperature increase has not occurred, which means that questions must be asked as to what is the proximate cause of this event. It implies that internal mechanisms that are not yet understood or possibly even known may have a more powerful effect than we know.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,406]

>How much is the Kyoto treaty going to make for some certain
>(*cough*Algore*cough*) companies, professor?

How much would "planting doubt" about climate change make for Arco, Exxon, Shell, Texaco, Halliburton and Union Pacific Coal? How much do they contribute to denier efforts? How is this similar to what the cigarette companies did in the 1950's and 1960's to "prove" their products weren't so dangerous? Did the cigarette company's efforts to claim "the science isn't settled" help their sales?

Compare and contrast.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Likewise, the statement "climate change scientific inquiry is being stifled" simply has no basis in reality.

Was I the only one who read about the polar bear expert not being invited to a conference because his views were "unhelpful"?

Sounds to me like there are people who are trying to stifle scientific evidence that might lead people to different (political) conclusions than their own.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

>How much is the Kyoto treaty going to make for some certain
>(*cough*Algore*cough*) companies, professor?

How much would "planting doubt"...

"Planting doubt" is the basis of scientific advancement. Stifling doubt is the basis of religious orthodoxy.

Regardless of motivation, the two actions are not equivalent.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So can you answer any of the questions about gravity? How fast does it propagate? Galileo's equations assume instantaneous propagation; how can that be? How does it propagate to begin with? Elementary particles? "Waves" in spacetime? Is it like electromagnetic radiation?

Again, since your assumption is that all this has been known for hundreds of years, and is conclusive, I assume you will have no problem answering those questions. After all, it's the law of gravity.

Einstein's equations say it's waves, and, IIRC correctly, they propagate at lightspeed.

All these questions have WHAT to do with watching a damn apple fall to the ground, Bill?

So, what's the next question, Bill? I mean, in 4 years posting here, I'm SURE I've made comments on SOME field or another that you great knowledge in, while I am recalling what I was taught in school. Another perfect opportunity for you to show it off with endless, inconsequential questions to discredit someone who dares to disagree with you.

You stay fucking classy, Mr. Moderator.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706