You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Here is a direct quote from this news article:

"Montreal — Tens of thousands of people ignored frigid temperatures Saturday to lead a worldwide day of protest against global warming.

Bundled-up protesters converged on a downtown square after marching from two separate starting points to listen to speakers and musicians in a rock concert atmosphere.

The demonstration coincided with the 10-day UN Climate Change Conference underway in Montreal, where officials are reviewing and updating the Kyoto protocol on lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

"This is protest is important because time is running out to deal with climate change," said Steven Guilbeault, the director of the Greenpeace movement for Quebec."

This is hysterical!  Only a completely ignorant moron would stage a protest against global warming in sub-zero temperatures and not see the irony in it. 

We are off to one of the coldest winters on record in Europe and in North America, of course the same slimey scientists wrangling for government grants to 'study' global warming explain it this way...the colder than normal temperatures are all an understandable part of global warming.  You think I'm kidding?  Here is a direct quote:

"Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter, that's what we're dealing with," he said.

Hell, they deserve the grant money just for keeping a straight face when they say it.

Comments

[Peter]

Global warming is about average trends. It may be cold in a particular year and yet the trendline may still be towards warmer temperatures. Similarly, it will always be colder in more northern latitudes than in equatorial latitudes. Also, in winter, the temperatures have been known to be cooler than during the summertime, when temperatures are often much higher than at any other time during the year. The summer of 2005 has been one of the hottest on record, especially in the American midwest, with temperatures soaring past the 100 fahrenheit mark in some cities.

[Mahatma]

And the winter is one of the coldest on record...of course that is only for historic records. If we go back to, say the ice age, I think a case could be made that it was colder then...oh and warmer before that...wait there were several Ice Ages...so that means what...exactly.

Naturally when you claim to KNOW what is causing the warming trend and then can't find any actual data to back that up, you are not engaging in science...you are actually engaging in a form of fraud. Studying 'global warming' is a confidence scam being played on simple minded dupes to lazy to actually engage in research.

Take for example the 'hole in the ozone' which all grant funded scientists agreed was what was causing the warming. Now that the hole has been shown to open and close on its own without regard to the needs to these grant sucking scientists...you don't here about the 'hole in the ozone layer' from these fraudsters any loner.

You defend this kind of moronic crap at your peril...you are getting in the same boat as the flat earth folks. Your words will come back to embarass you.

Peter, some day you will be forty years old and look back on this with the same wry humor that I can look back on the 60's. We were so incredibly stupid and ignorant...we were too dumb to even know how ignorant we actually were!

Call it cynicism learned from experience...

[Terri G]

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that these not so bright Canadians decided tp protest "global warming" in the the middle of winter! What exactly were they thinking??
Oh, wait a minute- they weren't!
I still don't get it though-I guess you had to be there, although even then it may not have made much sense.
Oh,(good grief) Canada.

[Carol]

Years ago, when the Kyoto Protocol was first gathering steam, the National Academy of Sciences produced a report on climate change that the media immediately depicted as an endorsement of Kyoto. Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, wrote a letter to the WSJ that I saved and wish I could link to but cannot. In his letter Lindzen laments the reaction of the press, stating that, “…far too much attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report.” He also noted that the body of the report, “…[made] it clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.”

Why should we care what Richard Lindzen thinks? Because he was one of the eleven scientists who co-authored the report. In his fascinating letter Lindzen basically states that while there is some agreement on global mean temperature change and rising of carbon dioxide levels, there is vast uncertainty as to the causes of these changes. The science is based upon assumptions and computer modeling that can be flawed and/or highly subjective. He notes that, “Thirty years ago we were concerned about global cooling.”

He concludes with the following:

“Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty - far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge – and that the NAS report has hardly ended the debate. Nor was it meant to.”

I find the Kyoto Protocol to be a prime example of a behavior pattern typical of the Left.

- First, there’s the Chicken-Little over-reaction that typically leads to disastrous policies (such as Kyoto, if the Left had their way).

- The second phase involves proving their superiority by being willing, for instance, to take the blame for global warming on behalf of all humanity. Unfortunately the taking of the high ground never includes any actual plan for facing the realities of life – that is always left to us selfish slobs who have the annoying habit of wanting to be practical.

- Third, there’s the ignoring of facts that don’t support their view and molding of select information into a program of propaganda that becomes the belief system of gullible ignoramuses who are too enchanted with feelings of superiority to think for themselves.

- Finally, when it turns out they were wrong, there is the amnesia phase where the Left turns to conservatives in power and demands to know what they are going to do to fix the inevitable economic and social problems that resulted from their shortsighted policies.

[Mahatma]

Carol:

Fantastic comment! You really should consider writing your own blog!

Mahatma

[Carol]

Thanks. I like commenting here where someone else might actually read what I write, but if I decide to break out on my own - you'll be the first to know!

[Peter]

Put it this way, the majority of information I've heard on global warming indicates that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence which points one way on the issue:

that, since the industrial age, average global temperature and CO2 emmisions have coincided. If we look at the planet Venus for example, with very high surface temperatures as a result of a blanket atmosphere of CO2, which effectively retains solar heat, we have a model for what might be happening on earth. Proponents of the view that global warming is being caused by industrial (CO2 emmisions) have both a striking coincidence - the parallel development of both rising global temperature and the industrial age - and many different models and explanations which can account for the causes of the temperature change (within the rubric of the industrially caused global warming theory).

On the other hand, there are competing explanations. ...I'll get into these later...

[Peter]

basically,

there are a number of scientists who have different explanations for global warming, and draw different conclusions based on the available evidence, or some portion of it. Or, they take the evidence and develop a different hypothesis to explain how it occurs (i.e. temperature increase).

However, I think there are some misunderstandings of the nature of science and how people who conduct science - scientists - arrive at the conclusions they do.

First of all, science isn't a partisan occupation. The types of investigation depend on the questions asked, which can benefit particular partisan points of view, but the process of science isn't partisan. A conclusion such as industrial emissions cause global warming can't be described as "leftist". It can only be described as true or false with various conditionals applying to each.

Secondly, science isn't about a monolithic consensus. Unlike other epistemologies such as religious epistemology, science never holds out its findings as "true forever". The closest science ever comes to saying something is "true" without a doubt, is to say that its a theory. A theory is a VERY strong statement about what is. A less-strong statement about what is, is called a hypothesis - a potential explanation for how observed phenomena came about.

As hypotheses are tested repeatedly and found to be consistent with that hypothesis, it is gradually accepted by more and more of the scientific community until it becomes a theory.

The theory of gravitational attraction is one theory that enjoys a rare degree of complete acceptance in the scientific community.

The theory of evolution is another theory that enjoys almost complete acceptance within the scientific community. In fact, the science of biology would be virtually impossible without one having accepted this basic theory.

The basic theory that industrial emmisions have a major role to play in global climate warming is, despite what the above posts indicate, very well accepted in the scientific community.

That doesn't mean its true. What it does mean is that most scientists, as reflected in the major scientific journals such as:

Scientific American
Science
Nature

etc,

accept it to be true, or atleast persuasive enough to warrant credibility over and above competing hypotheses.

Now, along comes the supposedly rational citizen. What is he or she supposed to believe? Well, that depends. Ultimately, one may decide that it is reasonable to believe what a majority of the scientific community believe to be true, and have for over three decades, or one can believe what a small but vocal community of dissenting scientists believe.

The evidence presented by both camps can also enter the picture.

I, for one, have reviewed the evidence by the majority camp and found it more persuasive than that presented by the dissenting camp. That doesn't mean that other people can't disagree with my view. They can and do.

However, to misrepresent science as a monolith, and to derogate believers of one or another camp is frankly, quite childish.

I repeat, science doesn't speak with one voice. Science is about dissent. Dissent has a strong role to play in moving science forward. However, that doesnt mean that all dissenters are correct. Dissenter's MUST depend on the available evidence and will fail to advance science if they don't.

Often scientific debates are resolved much earlier than among the general population.

The scientific debate over evolution wound up effectively before the 20th century. However, there are still people in the continentual United States and elsewhere who keep this scientifically dead debate alive.

Like I say, the debate over global warming is effectively over (with perhaps 1-3% of scientists disagreeing - if that) with a few media channels and other sources clinging to contrary views (i.e. fox news).

Also notable is the geographical dispersion of global warming dissenters: perhaps the most significant concentration of global warming dissenters reside within the continental united states. Elsewhere in the EU and in political and scientific communities in Asia, South America, Africa, Australia and New Zealand, and Canada, it is a decided issue (in favour of the theory that industrial emmissions cause global warming).

However, having said all that, being part of a small group of global citizens within the only nation state that doesn't belong to Kyoto doesn't make that nation or group of citizens wrong.

It merely makes it remarkable, and hopefully would cause such remarkable citizens within such a remarkable nation, to pause and wonder at their situation. To perhaps, re-evaluate received information and the premises on which they based...

[Carol]

Forgive me Peter but I’m still stuck on this comment from your earlier post:

“Also, in winter, the temperatures have been known to be cooler than during the summertime, when temperatures are often much higher than at any other time during the year.”

Were you serious or just trying to be funny?

With three posts, one quite lengthy, you still managed to have missed the point entirely. The question is this: is the science on global warming sufficiently reliable as to be used to make sweeping changes to national policy when such changes could have huge economic implications for the future of this country? The answer is a resounding – no booming – NO.

On the other hand, you’ve done a good job of showcasing the dangers of putting amateur scientists in charge of national policy. You’re like the well-meaning stranger who gives directions to the lost driver, not because he knows how to get there, but because he believes that any directions are better than none. While you’re patting yourself on the back, the poor driver becomes more lost than ever.

[Carol]

Peter,

FYI:

http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/LttrtoPaulMartin.html

[Carol]

Peter,

Sorry for my snarky tone yesterday. In my hurry to respond I wasn’t as thoughtful as I should have been.

One thing nice about having this debate is that, hopefully, it makes each of us re-evaluate where we stand and how we arrived there. Your comments motivated me to do some modest research on the topic of global warming. I was curious about your claim that the debate over global warming is effectively over inside the scientific community. If you’re talking about evidence of some warming in recent years, there is agreement in that respect; but that’s hardly the critical question. The most important issues have to do with the degree of warming, the long-term implications, the effect of man (if any) on warming, and what to do about it. On these critical issues I found the debate to be far from over.

In my research I came across this article written by none other than Richard Lindzen, the MIT scientist and NAS panel member that I quoted above. It is perhaps the most important article on the issue of global warming that I could imagine reading, and not because of the science. He does a great job of explaining the science, but let’s face it – neither you nor I are scientists. Our method of debating science is to quote someone who has science credentials, and we could do this all day long without there ever being a clear winner.

What’s crucial in the article is Lindzen’s description of the birth of the current global warming movement and his insights into its politicization. On the issue of global warming, it is just as critical to understand the motivations of the people at the forefront of the debate as it is to understand the science itself, if not more so. In light of your statement that, “the process of science isn't partisan,” I would think you would find it most interesting. I realize it’s very lengthy but I assure you that you will be rewarded with lots of food for thought.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

or http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/153_Regulation.pdf

[Peter]

I'm sure I would be interested, Carol.

Bear in mind however, that I didn't say that the scientific debate on global warming was over as you had previously mentioned.

What I did say was that it was almost completely over. So, to put a general quantitative figure to it; probably about 95% over (e.g that would be the proportion of scientists who have found the available evidence to skew so strongly towards the conclusion that human-made fossil fuel emissions have prompted the current global warming trend).

But, that doesn't mean that if the evidence tomorrow suddenly pointed the opposite way, that the scientific community wouldn't follow suit.

Science follows the evidence, not what "most scientists" believe. Thus, the fact that there is a minority of dissenters out there is not a bad thing. In my view, individual scientists are often very knowledgeable about the scientific method. They will do their own survey if they doubt other people's findings.

But over time, as studies stack up with more or less similar conclusions, then the so-called "fun" factor of science goes out of it. What is the point in doing another "pointless" study of global warming if the conclusion is so well established? Perhaps some will, but many will be satisfied with the methodology and research method of the many, many studies that have been done on the relationship between human activity and global warming.

Regarding the MIT professor and his article you've come accross, I'm sure that his view and his evidence will be very interesting. That said however, it should be taken into context with the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion at MIT regarding global warming and human activity (and for that matter, scientific opinion and evidence at large).

My point is, if you wish to find contrary arguments and evidence - you can. Indeed, this contrary evidence will point to something very fundamental in scientific investigation and indeed empiricism. This is an issue that very few people trully appreciate.

And this issue is the following:

Science very, very rarely has the ability through empirical evidence to state that something is unequivocally true, without a doubt.

As evidence of this, consider the relationship between smoking and lung cancer.

Were you aware that the relationship between cigarrette smoking and incidence of lung cancer is NOT a causal relationship?

In other words, there is no scientific evidence to prove that if you smoke, you will, for sure, absolutely without a doubt, become afflicted with lung cancer.

Instead, there is what's known as correlative evidence that smoking coincides with a greater risk of developing lung cancer.

This correlation is stunningly high: in the high 90% somewhere!

But, that doesn't make it a causal relationship. A causal relationship is almost impossible to establish.

Many unscupulous scientists exploited the fact that scientific evidence on the smoking issue was not absolutely perfect (aka causal). They could say quite truthfully that there was no causal relationship linking smoking with lung cancer. However, for most people, this is a very poor way of stating the science on the issue.
It avoids presenting the fact that the science on smoking and lung cancer is about as convincing as it can possibly be, and that almost no policy or health decisions can ever be made based on perfect evidence.

Once again, the rational health policy decision maker in the 1970s and 1980s had to ask him or herself "based on the vast majority of the science out there, what is the relationship between smoking and lung cancer".

The majority of honest, rational-thinking public health officials would have said, the science speaks with pretty convincing evidence one way on the issue and as such, I can disregard the minority of dissenting scientists who are having their research subsidized by the tobacco industry.

I believe that a similar framework has emerged with respect to the relationship between global warming and fossil fuel emissions. The basic science is remarkably simple. Fossil fuel emissions contain CO2 - a gas that traps heat when it is absorbed into the atmosphere.

We can tell from looking out at the sky anywhere on the globe that there is a trully sickening amount of pollution in the atmosphere. See that pinky haze that surrounds Los Angeles, Vancouver, New York, Tokyo, Paris, and any other city or location on this planet?

That's pollution. Trapped within that pollution haze is an enormous amount of NO2, CO2, NO3 and other noxious sulphides and carbon based gases.

One would think that this pollution, in and of itself, would be sufficient reason to join an international effort to combat emissions levels.

In any case, the rest is well known...a greenhouse effect is created...etc etc.

I can't for the life of me understand why this issue would ever become politicized. We all depend on the world and clean air and water for our lives. That we would willingly press for complete certainty on the global warming issue, knowing full well that complete certainty is a virtual unkown in scientific inquiry, and that if even the majority science on this issue is drastically wrong - that the effort to curb global warming would be justified in lowering pollution in any case, is incomprehensible.

How will we respond to our children and grandchildren when they ask us about our responsibility to pass onto them the same gift we inherited?

For some deep reflection on this issue, I recommend that you visit a very well known and revered Canadian scientist and environmental activist, David Suzuki.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/

[Kevin B.]

I've also still not seen any serious discussions of the implications of the study showing that Mars temperatures have been rising also... curse those Martian industrialist capitalists!