Readers will have noticed that output has fallen off drastically here lately; the demands of the workplace have continued to press heavily upon me. There seems to be light at the end of the tunnel, however, and in fact I am actually spending this weekend doing things other than writing and debugging program code — and may even, before long, have the little grey cells back in sufficent working order to start scribbling tendentious poppycock at the usual rate once again.
But for tonight, just a link: an Op-Ed item from the Wall Street Journal (admittedly not a neutral voice on this topic) about the increasing number of scientists who have broken ranks to question the orthodox view of anthropogenic global warming. Here.
10 Comments
I didn’t start to question the “consensus” about AGW until I saw how critical voices were being shouted down with insults instead of arguments that addressed the questions raised by critics. The big loser, I think, is science itself.
That’s right, Bob, and that’s what has bothered me also. For all I know, the “consensus” may indeed be correct — but the way the skeptics have been treated, for what are often clearly political reasons, has been shameful.
There is always need for vigilance when ideologues seize upon an “emergency” to justify radical social or political action, whether it’s the Great War (the excesses of the Wilson administration were, effectively, a period of Fascism in America), the Depression (the National Recovery Administration under FDR and Hugh “Iron Pants” Johnson was little better), the Reichstag fire, the current economic meltdown, or climate change. As Rahm Emanuel said, “you don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste.”
I’ve said it before…. well, HL actually wrote it but, well you know:
“Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”
The article doesn’t give much evidence for its central claim that “The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling.” It mentions some groups of “scientists” who are skeptics, but what scientists, and with what expertise. It references a politician’s count of 700 skeptic “scientists” but, forgive me if I’m not impressed before seeing their names.
Let’s look at some of the claims:
Well, whoopee. Giaever got his Nobel Prize for his research in superconductivity. How does that make him an expert on climate science? He was also born in 1929, and forgive me for speaking the plain truth, 80 year old men aren’t really in top form…
Joanne Simpson, born in 1923, is a meteorologist and worked for NASA. But what is the source for the WSJ’s claim? Perhaps it is this statement? What does she say?
On, on, on to the next one:
According to the Heartland Institute, which is as you know friendly towards skeptics, Dr. Kiminori Itoh is a PhD in Industrial Chemistry. He describes himself (in his own words) as a physical chemist familiar with environmental sciences, and not particularly specialized in climate science. Perhaps he knows what he’s talking about, but Dr Itoh wouldn’t be the first person I’d think to ask about global warming, or the climate in general…
I don’t think any science should ever be “settled” if that is indeed the position of the American Physical Society. Will Happer is an interesting figure: he thinks we need more CO2, for example, or so at least it is reported. But what about this list? You can find it here. Interesting list, but it brags about adding a neuropharmacologist and a CNN weatherman to the list…so, um, ok. Have to examine the list a little more thoroughly. But if were were to make a list of global warming accepting climate scientists, how many would be on the list? Really, what do raw numbers mean without context. Without context, its just rhetoric.
There’s been a collapse? From where?
Oh, I feel safer now, ’cause you know, 8 years will let me predict the next 80 years of global climate.
Which doomsday scenarios, proposed by whom? Which peer-reviewed research? Published where? And, well, I’m sure there’s peer reviewed research that says the contrary.Oh yeah, the IPCC stuff. But not just there.
Suddenly, every thing is clear. Wall Street Journal, global financial crisis, …
So what made this article worth reading, exactly?
What made this article worth reading? Only that it’s good to be reminded — given the hysteria surrounding AGW, the branding of skeptics as “deniers” (read: “heretics”, with a whiff also of Holocaust “denial”) and its use as a lever to enact all manner of large-scale social, political, and economic programs — that there is serious and genuine dissent within the scientific community. And you don’t have to be a specialist to know politicized science, or questionable science generally, when you see it; when somebody like Freeman Dyson, for example, having listened to the debate, announces that he thinks there is good reason to be skeptical, I think it is worth noting.
I’m not taking sides here, by the way; as I said above, for all I know the consensus is correct. But there is a great deal more in play in this debate than just science; there are an awful lot of people who have vested interests and ulterior motives here, and the stakes are very high.
Thanks for the links.
Dyson had an allergy to scientific consensus. In any case, as far as I can tell, Dyson believed in human-caused climate change, but didn’t think it was much worth worrying about. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson)
There might be serious dissent within the scientific community, but I’m not sure that this WSJ article demonstrates this.
Dyson’s still around. That past tense had me worried for a minute there.
You’re right, though, Jack – Dyson does appear to agree that human activities have contributed to global warming. I went off half-cocked there; as I had recalled, he didn’t. I stand corrected.
An allergic reaction to consensus might not be a bad thing. It probably depends on what basis the consensus has. If the consensus smacks more of the political than the epistemological, then it’s just another idol of the marketplace.
Apologies, I thought I had read his obituary. Glad to be wrong!