Motus Mentis

14 Comments

1. the one eyed man says

   Who is Fritz Vahrenholt?

   Describing him as “one of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement” is a gross mischaracterization. As a student radical in the 1970’s, he protested chemical companies, which led to his selection as Environmental Senator. However, once in this role he changed course and “incurred the wrath of the environmental lobby by building a waste incineration plant, earning him the nickname ‘Feuerfritze’ (Fire Fritz). He worked in industry after that, first for oil multinational Shell and then for wind turbine maker RePower, which he helped develop. Now, as the outgoing CEO of the renewable energy group RWE Innogy, he is about to embark on his next major battle.”

   Now that he now wants to burnish his credentials as a climate skeptic, one might expect him to have his book reviewed by a real, live, rootin’ tootin’ scientist. Well, he did show it to one climatologist, who dismissed it as nonsense:

   “He has only given the book to one climatologist, Jochem Marotzke, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, to read prior to its publication. Marotzke’s assessment is clear: Vahrenholt represents the standpoints of climate skeptics. ‘A number of the hypotheses in the book were refuted long ago,’ Marotzke claims, but adds, on a self-critical note, that his profession has neglected to explain that global temperatures will not increase uniformly. Instead, says Marotzke, there could also be phases of stagnation and even minor declines in temperature. ‘This has exposed us to potential criticism,’ he says.”

   http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html

   Let’s review. On one side, there are hundreds (thousands?) of climatologists whose peer-reviewed research has led those who actually have expertise in the subject to reach virtual unanimity in concluding that the Earth’s temperature is warming. On the other side, you have an energy executive with no expertise in the subject who is trying to sell his new book, and whose “research” was dismissed by the one scientist who reviewed it.

   Vahrenhold is not to be taken seriously in his claims, which in any event are hardly a “crack” in the established body of research. He does have a really cool name, though.

   Posted February 8, 2012 at 1:27 pm | Permalink
2. Malcolm says

   Who is Fritz Vahrenholt?

   Nothing like a good old ad hominem assault to get the ball rolling. Never hurts to try.

   And then there’s this:

   Marotzke … adds, on a self-critical note, his profession has neglected to explain that global temperatures will not increase uniformly. Instead, says Marotzke, there could also be phases of stagnation and even minor declines in temperature. ‘This has exposed us to potential criticism,’ he says.”

   Ah yes, yet another nudge in the direction of complete unfalsifiablity. No warming measured for years and years? No problem.

   Reminds me of another human activity that depends on unfalsifiablity: religion.

   Anyway, I was hardly expecting you to entertain any skepticism here, Pete.

   “That one can convince one’s opponents with printed reasons, I have not believed since the year 1764. It is not for that purpose that I have taken up my pen, but rather merely to annoy them, and to give strength and courage to those on our side, and to make it known to the others that they have not convinced us.” G.C. Lichtenberg, SudelbÁ¼cher, (Frankfurt am Main und Leipzig: Insel Verlag, 1984), E170 from Sudelbuch E (1775-1776), p. 203.

   Posted February 8, 2012 at 1:38 pm | Permalink
3. the one eyed man says

   It’s not ad hominem at all. For all I know, Mr. Vahrenholt is a wonderful human being. My point is simply that he’s not a scientist, but rather a shill for the energy industry, where he has worked for the past few decades.

   Marotzke is simply saying that the Earth’s temperature does not go straight up, but over time it goes up and to the right. This doesn’t mean that climate change is unfalsifiable; it means that it is not linear.

   I may be uncertain about Heisenberg and inconstant about Planck, but I do know this: when three people tell you that you’re drunk, it’s best to lie down. When 98% of surveyed climatologists agree that global warming is a reality (with a lesser number in agreement that it is anthropogenic) and find themselves in opposition with individuals who lack the requisite expertise and have an axe to grind, or a book to sell, I’ll put my money with the former.

   Posted February 8, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Permalink
4. Malcolm says

   Right. “A shill”. No ad hominem there. Excellent rebuttal of Mr. Vahrenholt’s argument, whatever it was.

   Regarding unfalsifiability: the more inclusive the data-set that is deemed not acceptable for falsifying claims of global warming, the smaller the range of results that might be considered as falsification.

   “The Earth is warming.”

   “No, actually our data show no statistically significant warming over the past several decades.”

   “Not a problem for our model. Lack of evidence of warming is not evidence that the Earth is not warming. (I should have made that more clear.)”

   As for axes to grind, it seems to me that there are more than enough vested interests (ideological, academic, economic, and political) on the side of global-warming alarmism to make skepticism a wise posture, especially given how radical the proposed remedies are.

   Look, for all I know, the Earth may indeed be warming. It may be cooling. It has done both for eons, since long before we came along.

   And for all I know, human activity may have something to do with what the climate does this time around. (I’ve explained my position here.)

   Forgive me, though, if I fail to panic in approporiate ways.

   Posted February 8, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Permalink
5. the one eyed man says

   If Vahrenholt has a serious argument to make, then he can submit it for peer review. Not to get all ontological on you, but that’s how we know stuff. If he chooses not to engage in the scientific process, then he’s just some guy with an opinion, and we’re all familiar with the correlation of opinions and certain body parts.

   Posted February 8, 2012 at 2:51 pm | Permalink
6. Malcolm says

   You seem to have missed the point that the peer-review process itself is an item of contention here; the influence of vested interests does not end at the gates of the academy.

   Posted February 8, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Permalink
7. the one eyed man says

   When last Friday’s employment numbers came out, many on the right dismissed them as the phony product of Labor Department bureaucrats who were in the tank for Obama. Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh called them a “lie”. (Funny, we never heard these complaints when the unemployment rate was around 10%).

   When Romney’s flip flops or Gingrich’s personal history (he’s coming to the Bay Area in two weeks – hide your wives!) are reported, it’s not really the events which count but the perceived bias by the “liberal media” who report it.

   Absent any evidence, the suggestion that scientific research and the peer review process are corrupted because its participants have “vested interests” is an assertion which lacks substantiation.

   I see a pattern here. Labor statisticians, media reporters, and scientists are all professionals whose careers depend on impartiality and objectivity. If there are bad statisticians, reporters, or scientists: fine, root them out. However, the clear pattern is that whenever data emerge which are inconvenient to the conservative mindview, both the data and those who present it are dismissed as corrupt. This can’t possibly be true: therefore there’s something wrong with the person who reports it. Ad hominem, anyone?

   Posted February 8, 2012 at 3:44 pm | Permalink
8. Malcolm says

   If there are bad statisticians, reporters, or scientists: fine, root them out.

   Which is exactly what Mr. Vahrenholt appears to be attempting to do.

   Posted February 8, 2012 at 4:38 pm | Permalink
9. Malcolm says

   Right, never a whiff of bias in the media.

   When last Friday’s employment numbers came out, many on the right dismissed them as the phony product of Labor Department bureaucrats who were in the tank for Obama. Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh called them a “lie”. (Funny, we never heard these complaints when the unemployment rate was around 10%).

   Actually, we did; people have been pointing out for some time now that the actual unemployment rate is higher than the numbers usually bruited about.

   But we’ve already had our little chat about last Friday’s numbers.

   Posted February 8, 2012 at 4:41 pm | Permalink
10. the one eyed man says

    El Rushbo’s context was not about the divergence between the two unemployment rates, which is widely known and acknowledged anyway. It was that the statistics were deliberately fabricated with the intent to deceive. In other words: a lie. However, that’s Limbaugh, and I certainly wouldn’t tie you or any other respectable conservative to the ravings of a fat, impotent gasbag.

    One thing which I’ve been thinking about is how the big guns among right wing men are mostly pasty faced white guys, while the big guns among right wing women are kinda hot. Pamela Geller may be a wingnut, and more than a little cuckoo, but she falls under the WNILF rubric. Christine O’Donnell: not bad for an ex-witch. Anne Coulter: fine if you go for that sort of thing. And I would pay good money to see a topless pillow fight between Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Beautiful women all. What’s up with that?

    Posted February 8, 2012 at 7:51 pm | Permalink
11. Malcolm says

    Didn’t hear what Rush said, so no comment.

    Hey, you guys have Rachel Maddow and Elena Kagan. Quit bitching.

    Posted February 8, 2012 at 8:25 pm | Permalink
12. the one eyed man says

    I’ll trade Maddow and Kagan for Dana Perino.

    Posted February 8, 2012 at 8:37 pm | Permalink
13. Malcolm says

    Update: here’s an interview with Mr. Vahrenholt.

    His professional interest has been, and continues to be, in renewable energy; he hardly seems a “shill” to me.

    Posted February 8, 2012 at 11:57 pm | Permalink
14. TheBigHenry says

    pic

    Posted February 9, 2012 at 1:28 am | Permalink