www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall More Proof of Global Warming?

"When we can predict next week's weather with 100% accuracy week after week, then I'll belive the computer models showing that global warming is actually man made."

Recently, Freeman Dyson, renowned physicist and polymath, indicated his disdain for the science of the global warming enthusiasts in an interview with Yale Environment 360


INTERVIEW
Freeman Dyson Takes On
The Climate Establishment

Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson has been roundly criticized for insisting global warming is not an urgent problem, with many climate scientists dismissing him as woefully ill-informed. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, Dyson explains his iconoclastic views and why he believes they have stirred such controversy.
by michael d. lemonick

On March 3, The New York Times Magazine created a major flap in the climate-change community by running a cover story on the theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson that focused largely on his views of human-induced global warming.

Basically, he doesn’t buy it. The climate models used to forecast what will happen as we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere are unreliable, Dyson claims, and so, therefore, are the projections. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, his first since the Times article appeared, Dyson contends that since carbon dioxide is good for plants, a warmer planet could be a very good thing. And if CO2 does get to be a problem, Dyson believes we can just do some genetic engineering to create a new species of super-tree that can suck up the excess.

These sorts of arguments are advanced routinely by climate-change
skeptics, and dismissed just as routinely by those who work in the field as clueless at best and deliberately misleading at worst. Dyson is harder to dismiss, though, in part because of his brilliance. He’s on the faculty at the Institute for Advanced Study, where as a young physicist he hobnobbed with Albert Einstein. When Julian Schwinger, Sin-Itiro Tomonaga and Richard Feynman shared the 1965 Nobel Prize in physics for quantum electrodynamics, Dyson was widely acknowledged to be almost equally deserving — but the Nobel Committee only gives out three prizes for a given discovery.

Nevertheless, large numbers of climate modelers and others who actually work on climate change — as Dyson does not — rolled their collective eyes at assertions they consider appallingly ill-informed. In his interview with Yale Environment 360, Dyson also makes numerous assertions of fact — from his claim that warming today is largely confined to the Arctic to his contention that human activities are not primarily responsible for rising global temperatures — that climate scientists say are flat-out wrong.

Many climate scientists were especially distressed that the Times gave his views such prominence. Even worse, when the profile’s author, Nicholas Dawidoff, was asked on NPR’s “On The Media” whether it mattered if Dyson was right or wrong in his views, Dawidoff answered, “Oh, absolutely not. I don’t care what he thinks. I have no investment in what he thinks. I’m just interested in how he thinks and the depth and the singularity of his point of view.”

This is, to put it bluntly, bizarre. It matters a great deal whether he’s right or wrong, given that his views have been trumpeted in such a prominent forum with essentially no challenge. So I visited Dyson in his Princeton office in May to probe a little deeper into his views on climate change.

Yale Environment 360: First of all, was that article substantially accurate about your views?

Freeman Dyson: It’s difficult to say, “Yes” or “No.” It was reasonably accurate on details, because they did send a fact-checker. So I was able to correct the worst mistakes. But what I could not correct was the general emphasis of the thing. He had his agenda. Obviously he wanted to write a piece about global warming and I was just the instrument for that, and I am not so much interested in global warming. He portrayed me as sort of
obsessed with the subject, which I am definitely not. To me it is a very small part of my life. I don’t claim to be an expert. I never did. I simply find that a lot of these claims that experts are making are absurd. Not that I know better, but I know a few things. My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have. I think that’s what upsets me.

e360: So it’s a sense you get from the way the argument is conducted that it’s not being done in an honest way.

Dyson: I think the difference between me and most of the experts is that I think I have a much wider view of the whole subject. I was involved in climate studies seriously about 30 years ago. That’s how I got interested. There was an outfit called the Institute for Energy Analysis at Oak Ridge. I visited Oak Ridge many times, and worked with those people, and I thought they were excellent. And the beauty of it was that it was multi-disciplinary. There were experts not just on hydrodynamics of the atmosphere, which of course is important, but also experts on vegetation, on soil, on trees, and so it was sort of half biological and half physics. And I felt that was a very good balance.

And there you got a very strong feeling for how uncertain the whole business is, that the five reservoirs of carbon all are in close contact — the atmosphere, the upper level of the ocean, the land vegetation, the topsoil, and the fossil fuels. They are all about equal in size. They all interact with each other strongly. So you can’t understand any of them unless you understand all of them. Essentially that was the conclusion. It’s a problem of very complicated ecology, and to isolate the atmosphere and the ocean just as a hydrodynamics problem makes no sense.

Thirty years ago, there was a sort of a political split between the Oak Ridge community, which included biology, and people who were doing these fluid dynamics models, which don’t include biology. They got the lion’s share of money and attention. And since then, this group of pure modeling experts has become dominant.

I got out of the field then. I didn’t like the way it was going. It left me with a bad taste.

Syukuro Manabe, right here in Princeton, was the first person who did climate models with enhanced carbon dioxide and they were excellent models. And he used to say very firmly that these models are very good tools for understanding climate, but they are not good tools for predicting climate. I think that’s absolutely right. They are models, but they don’t pretend to be the real world. They are purely fluid dynamics. You can learn a lot from them, but you cannot learn what’s going to happen 10 years from now.

What’s wrong with the models. I mean, I haven’t examined them in detail, (but) I know roughly what’s in them. And the basic problem is that in the case of climate, very small structures, like clouds, dominate. And you cannot model them in any realistic way. They are far too small and too diverse.

So they say, ‘We represent cloudiness by a parameter,’ but I call it a fudge factor. So then you have a formula, which tells you if you have so much cloudiness and so much humidity, and so much temperature, and so much pressure, what will be the result... But if you are using it for a different climate, when you have twice as much carbon dioxide, there is no guarantee that that’s right. There is no way to test it.

We know that plants do react very strongly to enhanced carbon dioxide. At Oak Ridge, they did lots of experiments with enhanced carbon dioxide and it has a drastic effect on plants because it is the main food source for the plants... So if you change the carbon dioxide drastically by a factor of two, the whole behavior of the plant is different. Anyway, that’s so typical of the things they ignore. They are totally missing the biological side, which is probably more than half of the real system.

e360: Do you think it’s because they don’t consider it important, or they just don’t know how to model it?

Dyson: Well, both. I mean it’s a fact that they don’t know how to model it. And the question is, how does it happen that they end up believing their models? But I have seen that happen in many fields. You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real. It is also true that the whole livelihood of all these people depends on people being scared. Really, just psychologically, it would be very difficult for them to come out and say, “Don’t worry, there isn’t a problem.” It’s sort of natural, since their whole life depends on it being a problem. I don’t say that they’re dishonest. But I think it’s just a normal human reaction. It’s true of the military also. They always magnify the threat. Not because they are dishonest; they really believe that there is a threat and it is their job to take care of it. I think it’s the same as the climate community, that they do in a way have a tremendous vested interest in the problem being taken more seriously than it is.

e360: When I wrote my first story about this in 1987, I had to say this is all theoretical, we haven’t actually detected any signal of climate change. Now, people point to all sorts of signals, which are just the sort of things that were being predicted, based in part on the models. They made predictions and they’ve tested the predictions by seeing what happened in the real world, and they seem to be at least in the same direction, and in about the same magnitude, they were predicting. So isn’t that a hint that there is something right about the models?

Dyson: Of course. No doubt that warming is happening. I don’t think it is correct to say “global,” but certainly warming is happening. I have been to Greenland a year ago and saw it for myself. And that’s where the warming is most extreme. And it’s spectacular, no doubt about it. And glaciers are shrinking and so on.

But, there are all sorts of things that are not said, which decreases my feeling of alarm. First of all, the people in Greenland love it. They tell you it’s made their lives a lot easier. They hope it continues. I am not saying none of these consequences are happening. I am just questioning whether they are harmful.

There’s a lot made out of the people who died in heat waves. And there is no doubt that we have heat waves and people die. What they don’t say is actually five times as many people die of cold in winters as die of heat in summer. And it is also true that more of the warming happens in winter than in summer. So, if anything, it’s heavily favorable as far as that goes. It certainly saves more lives in winter than it costs in summer.

So that kind of argument is never made. And I see a systematic bias in the way things are reported. Anything that looks bad is reported, and anything that looks good is not reported.

A lot of these things are not anything to do with human activities. Take the shrinking of glaciers, which certainly has been going on for 300 years and has been well documented. So it certainly wasn’t due to human activities, most of the time. There’s been a very strong warming, in fact, ever since the Little Ice Age, which was most intense in the 17th century. That certainly was not due to human activity.

And the most serious of almost all the problems is the rising sea level. But there again, we have no evidence that this is due to climate change. A good deal of evidence says it’s not. I mean, we know that that’s been going on for 12,000 years, and there’s very doubtful arguments as to what’s been happening in the last 50 years and (whether) human activities have been important. It’s not clear whether it’s been accelerating or not. But certainly, most of it is not due to human activities. So it would be a shame if we’ve made huge efforts to stop global warming and the sea continued to rise. That would be a tragedy. Sea level is a real problem, but we should be attacking it directly and not attacking the wrong problem.

e360: Another criticism that’s been leveled is that your thoughts and predictions about the climate models are relatively unsophisticated, because you haven’t been in close contact with the people who are doing them. But if you sit down and actually talk to the people about what goes into the models today and what they are thinking about and how they think about clouds, you might discover that your assumptions about what they are doing are not correct. Is that plausible? Do you think it might inform you better to actually sit down with these people and find out what they are doing today?

Dyson: Well, it depends on what you mean by sitting down with people. I do sit down with people. I don’t go over their calculations in detail. But I think I understand pretty well the world they live in.

I guess one thing I don’t want to do is to spend all my time arguing this business. I mean, I am not the person to do that. I have two great disadvantages. First of all, I am 85 years old. Obviously, I’m an old fuddy-duddy. So, I have no credibility.

And, secondly, I am not an expert, and that’s not going to change. I am not going to make myself an expert. What I do think I have is a better judgment, maybe because I have lived a bit longer, and maybe because I’ve done other things. So I am fairly confident about my judgment, and I doubt whether that will change. But I am certainly willing to change my mind about details. And if they find any real evidence that global warming is doing harm, I would be impressed. That’s the crucial point: I don’t see the evidence...

And why should you imagine that the climate of the 18th century — what they call the pre-industrial climate — is somehow the best possible?

e360: I don’t think people actually believe that. I think they believe it’s the one during which our modern civilization arose. And that a rapid change to a different set of circumstances wouldn’t be worse in a grand sense, but it would be very badly suited to the infrastructure that we have got.

Dyson: That’s sort of what I would call part of the propaganda — to take for granted that any change is bad.

e360: It’s more that any change is disruptive. You don’t think that’s reasonable?

Dyson: Well, disruptive is not the same as bad. A lot of disruptive things actually are good. That’s the point. There’s this sort of mindset that assumes any change is bad. You can call it disruptive or you can call it change. But it doesn’t have to be bad.

e360: One thing is that if the temperature change projections are accurate for the next 100 years, it would be equivalent to the change that took us out of the last Ice Age into the present interglacial period, which is a very dramatic change.

Dyson: Yes, that’s highly unlikely. But it’s possible certainly.

e360: And the further argument is that this would happen much more quickly than that change happened. So it is hard to imagine that, at least in the short run, it could be anything but highly destructive.

Dyson: There’s hidden assumptions there, which I question, that you can describe the climate by a single number. In the case of the Ice Age, that If they find any real evidence that global warming is doing harm, I would be impressed.” might be true, that it was cold everywhere. The ice was only in the northern regions, but it was also much colder at the equator in the Ice Age.

That’s not true of this change in temperature today. The change that’s now going on is very strongly concentrated in the Arctic. In fact in three respects, it’s not global, which I think is very important. First of all, it is mainly in the Arctic. Secondly, it’s mainly in the winter rather than summer. And thirdly, it’s mainly in the night rather than at the daytime. In all three respects, the warming is happening where it is cold, not where it is hot.

e360: So, the idea is that the parts that are being disrupted are the parts that are inhospitable to begin with?

Dyson: Mostly. It is not 100 percent. But mostly they are, Greenland being a great example.

e360: Do you mind being thrust in the limelight of talking about this when it is not your main interest. You’ve suddenly become the poster child for global warming skepticism.

Dyson: Yes, it is definitely a tactical mistake to use somebody like me for that job, because I am so easily shot down. I’d much rather the job would be done by somebody who is young and a real expert. But unfortunately, those people don’t come forward.

e360: Are there people who are knowledgeable about this topic who could do the job of pointing out what you see as the flaws?

Dyson: I am sure there are. But I don’t know who they are.

I have a lot of friends who think the same way I do. But I am sorry to say that most of them are old, and most of them are not experts. My views are very widely shared.

Anyway, the ideal protagonist I am still looking for. So the answer
to your question is, I will do the job if nobody else shows up, but I regard it as a duty rather than as a pleasure.

e360: Because it is important for you that people not take drastic actions about a problem that you are not convinced exists?

Dyson: Yes. And I feel very strongly that China and India getting rich is the most important thing that’s going on in the world at present. That’s a real revolution, that the center of gravity of the whole population of the world would be middle class, and that’s a wonderful thing to happen. It would be a shame if we persuade them to stop that just for the sake of a problem that’s not that serious.

And I’m happy every time I see that the Chinese and Indians make a strong statement about going ahead with burning coal. Because that’s what it really depends on, is coal. They can’t do without coal. We could, but they certainly can’t.

So I think it is very important that they should not be under pressure. Luckily they are, in fact, pretty self-confident; (neither) of those countries pays too much attention to us.

But that’s my motivation... Anyhow, I think we have probably said enough.

John, as a professional scholar, scholarly consensus means everything to me. Even if consensus is eventually proved to be wrong and often is, it remains at the instant time the most informed view on an issue. If you are trying to argue that you feel that neither side has proved their case 100% and the jury is still out, then I can agree with you. The whole issue, on either side of the debate, remains unresolved. The matter, in effect, is an inductive argument which means that either side has to marshal its best evidence and let the end user make the decision for him or herself.

Global warming ? Sure, why wouldn't I believe it when the exact opposite is actually occuring. 56 F and raining in the Chicago area, 8 days before the official start of Summer. The entire month has been like this so far. Unseasonably cool and wet almost every day. Not to mention this comes after one of the coldest Winters in my lifetime.

John,

I would urge you to rethink what means everything to you. Scholarly consensus should never replace the scientific method for questions of science. “Group think” is always suspect and one should not put his faith in it. If I were to go to the doctor with a bum knee he might tell me that the consensus is that at my age it is probably the beginning of arthritis. But if he took an x-ray and found that the cause of my pain was a torn ligament I’d put my faith in the plain result of the x-ray rather then the consensus of what a reasonable theory of the problem might be for a man my age. This is not an exact comparison but I hope you understand the need to place the scientific method before scholarly consensus (group think).

If one does look at the scientific evidence to evaluate the claims of the global warming group the science does not support it. The scientific measurements support only natural climate change of the type we’ve always had. None of the measurements support the claims for global warming. The computer model they are using now to predict global warming is the same one that was discredited when they used it to predict global cooling back in the 1970s. The claim is that it doesn’t matter if the method is invalid because they really believe that the answer is correct. What they believe should be the result of the scientific method. It should not be the starting point around which their model is designed.

Scientific calculations by official groups demonstrate that the overall temperature of the earth was the same at the end of 2007 as it was in 1930. In that 80 years the temperature rose and fell. On what basis do you reject factual science and replace it with consensus? That sounds pretty strange to me. If we are at the same temperature we were 80 years ago with the level of industrialization we've had in that time where is the justification for the global warming hysteria?

And then there is the whole political side. Right now the bill in Congress that Speaker Pilosi is trying to push through is going to cost (according to Congressional Budget Office estimates) the average family about $1,000 / year by 2012 in additional utility taxes (mostly on ‘dirty fuels’ like oil & coal) (when the first phase-in is complete). How does your conscience feel about forcing people to pay more of their hard earned money in an attempt to get them to use less energy? Especially when the reason they are going to be given is that people like you go with a consensus of scholars rather then one of hard science? And then there are the tiny cars they want to force people into with the CAFE standards. Everyone agrees that the Competitive Enterprise Institute analysis is correct when it shows that they cause the deaths of about 3,500 people each year (small cars do worse in crashes then do bigger cars). The Obama administration (and others on the global warming side) sees this as an acceptable price to pay to save the planet. Are you happy with these deaths? I would never make policy on a consensus of opinion that is not the result of sound science. And on global warming the consensus of opinion among scientists is that it is mostly hype.

John

John, the comments that follow only apply to the general concept of the scientific method and hypothesis formation. They do not apply to the concept of global warming and I have not taken a position on the matter in this discussion because I leave it to the scientific experts. From my perspective, the scientific method and scholarly consensus are intertwined. One arrives at scholarly consensus by employing the scientific method where appropriate. That is to say you make them sound like they are antithetical. They are not. I said use the scientific method where appropriate because it is not useful in all things; one cannot apply it in most aspects of the humanities. When I judge a passage in Greek literature for its literary qualities, the scientific method is inappropriate because subjective judgments are required.

The scientific method, or if you want to call it inductive reasoning as some scholars have, can lead different people to different conclusions. Cosmologists can and do disagree about the origins of the universe. The best discussion of hypothesis formation in science and its role in the scientific method for the layman I have ever seen is in Patrick Hurley's Concise introduction to Logic. I assume you are familiar with it. I think I have contributed all I can to this discussion. Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

John, I did go back and read your comments more closely and i see we agree on the idea that, where appropriate, the scientific method must precede scholarly consensus. I see that we are saying the same thing! As far as methodology goes, we are apparently on the same page, I said much the same thing in my first paragraph. We may disagree on the idea that different scientists might interpret the outcome of the scientific method (experiment and the like) differently. Thank you for a thoght provoking set of comments.

Acid rain was a problem the Canadian government along with the Europeans lead the global community in fighting in the early 1970's. At the time the US was very reliant on coal for energy and thus dragged it's feet in legislating new laws which would reduce the sulfur producing emissions. The ecosystem of thousands of lakes, rivers, estuaries, forests, and mountains were severely damaged ] in regions were coal was being used for energy - ie: the Northeast USA and Northcentral Europe. Many aquatic systems became so acidified that all life permanently died and to this day are unable to support any animal life (ex; fish). Due to the relatively ‘local’ dispersion patterns of acid rain, the problem was not a global, but in fact a regional national problem of many industrialized countries which were reliant on coal. Acid rain was a problem in the Northeastern US but not California. Acid Rain was problem in Germany but not Sicily. Tough federal legislation in most industrialized countries eventually significantly reduced, and in many cases stopped the ecological damage. If you do not remember the early 1970’s, then you only need to travel to the industrial areas of Eastern Europe (ex: Poland) to see how uncontrolled sulfur emitting coal has destroyed the environment. However, even Eastern Europeans and even the Chinese have come to realize that the ecology must have precedent over profits. In fact the Chinese as late as they have been to become ecologically friendly, are now leading the global effort in many areas, notably ‘clean coal’ and electric cars. They have quickly come to realize that even they live in a global community which can’t sustain the levels of pollution Perhaps there are those who believe that Acid Rain was / is part of some atmospheric 'cycle' which occurs every 'x' number of years. Most scientists believe it is related to sulfur producing coal.

Acid Rain destruction (Photos courtesey of NASA) [daac.gsfc.nasa.gov]

Ozone layer damage was yet another atmospheric problem created by man. To this day there are regions in the Southern hemisphere (as far North as Southern Australia) where it is no longer safe to be in the sun without a 100% sun block. The harmful rays of the sun are simply not filtered anymore thus making the land dangerous for man. For well over 25 years there have been significant changes to our industrial chemical engineering manufacturing and consumer products which have dramatically reduced the number of Ozone destroying molecules, resulting in what appears to be a halting of the destruction of the Ozone layer. Only a continued global effort in this regard will preserve the planet's atmosphere for future generations. Perhaps there are those who believe that the loss of the Ozone layer is part of some natural global cycle of the atmosphere. Most scientists believe that man can and has in fact negatively impact the Earth’s Ozone layer.

Ozone layer 'hole' (NASA pictorial) [ipy.nasa.gov]

Is the term 'Global Warming' a misnomer ? Should we not call it 'Global Climate Change' ? The two expression are not incongruent but in fact complimentary and can explain why there are areas of the Earth where the temperature has risen and others where it is ‘unusually cool’. The theory is that the due to rapid global deforestation and industrialization, the amount of atmospheric gases and particulate matter are changing the ‘atmospheric ecology’ and ultimately increasing the temperature. It is the ‘unnatural’ interplay between greenhouse gases and particulate matter which is causing the temperature to increase. The large mass of warm air generated by the industrialized nations (Europe, North America, China, Japan, etc…) is expanding and moving into the North where it is thought that the Polar ice cools it down. The cool air is returning to the industrialized nations produces in many cases unseasonably cold winters and cool summers. Hence why the Canadian wheat farmers are experiencing never before seen cooler than normal seasons. In other words, the industrialized nations are producing large masses of warm air which expands and rises to the far North where it is ‘super cooled’ by the Polar ice caps and then returns to the South producing unseasonably cool weather.

What is alarming about the status quos is that the Northern ice caps are rapidly shrinking and will over time lose their cooling effect, much like an ice pack in a cooler. The smaller the ice pack, the less effective it is in cooling the cooler. The theory is that the ‘real’ environmental dangers will occur once the Northern ice caps are no longer effective in cooling the man made warm air of the industrialized nations. A simple 1 or 2 degree permanent change in global atmospheric temperatures could cause a dramatic change in the climate as we now know it. A permanent minor temperature chage would also greatly impact both vegetation and animal life.

The debate then for some is as follows: (1) are we experiencing a global change in temperature, and /or (2) if yes will it in fact affect the global ecosystem, and/or (3) are we perhaps not just experiencing a natural atmospheric temperature cycle fluctuation, and / or (4) if yes to question 4 – is there anything we can do about it ? etc….

Over the past 2000 years there have been dramatic temperature change over the globe which have impacted human history, particularly Western civilization as we know it. European and Northern African temperatures have dramatically changed over this time resulting in significant changes to the lands. The once fertile soils of Northern Africa have in many cases turned to deserts, and the vineyards of the British Isles and Germany are no more. Where these dramatic changes the cause of humans polluting the atmosphere ? No credible science has been produced to support this theory. Natural temperature fluctuations do in fact occur over the centuries / millennia, and possibly we are experiencing such a natural change now (up or down).

The argument therefore is global warming happening at all, and if yes, is it man made. The Earth is a large ‘lab’ and we have not mastered the science of accurately measuring all of the changes to that atmosphere. Further, it’s impossible to remove one variable to see how it’s possibly negatively impacting the global atmosphere. At least that’s what everyone thought until 9/11. On that day, all global aviation came to halt, and for the next three days, there were no commercial planes flying the Earth. Did this affect the global temperature ? Most scientists believed it did, by as much as a 2 degree change between diurnal and nocturnal temperatures. The sudden complete loss of particulate matter generated by commercial airliners alone in the higher atmosphere caused a 1- 2 degree difference between diurnal and nocturnal temperatures when compared with the past 30 year records. In other words, the stratospheric pollutants of commercial airlines alone are thought to increase atmospheric temperatures by up to 1-2 degrees.

The Northern ice caps are melting at an alarming rate. That is something we have not seen in many, many millennia. There are those who believe that this is inconsequential to the global atmosphere and/or part of a natural cycle, and there are those who believe it is a man made phenomena which will have dire effects once the ice caps are no longer able to cool the atmosphere. Perhaps it’s better to err on the side of caution.

I.F.

In one of my fields, Economics, near majority consensus on macroeconomics was reached a long time ago. Professor's were mocked for bothering to debate Milton Friedman in the '60s, as his ideas were nonsensical.

Of course, his analysis predicted the stagflation of the 1970's as the result of the policies of the period, while the consensus view was that such simultaneous high unemployment and high inflation was impossible.

Friedman got the last laugh and the Nobel prize.

As a sidenote, pretty much everyone with a (modern) economic background except congressmen and government bureaucrats understand the newer analysis that the debate is whether a massive stimulus progam would have a) no or b) very limited effects, but that doesn't stop both parties . . .

hawk, who also will take the scientific method over consensus

Ah, but on a political plane, such a stimulus package works perfectly. Though the recession will correct itself even before any stimulus money begins working its way through the system, people do not understand how long it takes between the passing of a bill and the disbursement of funds, so they naturally assume that a stimulus bill passed at the bottom of a recession is the reason the recession ends, and they give all the credit to the politicians who worked so hard to spend the taxpayer's money.

It's a classic case of the post hoc fallacy--as is the correlation between CO2 and temperature increases.

Hawk, you cherry picked from my comments!!!! You chose to ignore the fact that, elsewhere in this thread, I also noted, "From my perspective, the scientific method and scholarly consensus are intertwined. One arrives at scholarly consensus by employing the scientific method where appropriate' and, in another place. that "where appropriate, the scientific method must precede scholarly consensus. " You seem to want to separate the scientific scholarly consensus from the scientific method and, in the process, have created a false dichotomy.

You denigrated the concept of Majority scholarly consensus citing the example of how Friedman was treated during the '70s and how eventually he received the Nobel prize. Unintentionally, I suspect, you have undercut your own statements. You make the case for me that scholarly consensus and the outcome of the scientific method are transient. What may be today’s orthodoxy, may not be true tomorrow as more research is done. Be this as it may, scholarly/majority consensus represents at any one time the most informed opinion in a particular discipline, although that opinion may change over time. Change is part of the process. It is the nature of the beast. In my judgment, as your comments stand, you would throw the baby out with the bath water. (It will be interesting to see whose theory of economics will be at the top of heap when this current recession/depression is over and on whom they will put the blame. Who knows if they can do it without inputting their own political bias into the equation? Will they blame it on policies of the last decade or will they go back thirty five or forty years? Time will tell.)


As for the application of scientific method and scholarly consensus to global warming, the scientific evidence can be interpreted both ways. If those are right that global warming exists, then when we know they are right it will be too late to do anything about it. If those who deny it are correct, it won't matter because the world will continue on as it does. Both sides play up the evidence that supports their own view. In a word the whole issue, is one big inductive argument based on the concept of possibility just like a stop sign, probability, cause and effect, etc etc. It is obvious, for that reason, that both sides in this debate can escape the conclusion put forward by their opponents. Each side can quarrel with the other and neither will convince the other about whose evidence or methodology is best.
Personally, I feel Occam's razor should be applied to the issue. But, because views on both side of the issue are so hardened, I suspect that neither side could agree on the simplest explanation for the global environment climate variations!!! One only has to examine some of the responses in the media at large to see that some peoples’ viewed are so set in concrete that they are unwilling to listen to the other side of the argument even if it has merit.

The data shows a 20 year period of warming... longer than the 11 year sunspot cycle... and a tiny general warming trend over the last 100... with a sudden drop in the last two years. A drop that may be "statistical noise" or may be a significant change.

Attributing it to anything at this point is a post hoc ergo propter hoc situation.

The data is pretty concrete on the temps, and on the sunspot activity, and on the CO2 levels, and on deforestation. But actually determining what causes the changes, there are good models, but all of them suffer from both chaotic system issues and from lack of observational resolution. (In short, what we can't observe is significant in the models, and the range of assumptions that are reasonable for those values produce wildly different results.)

Heavens, no.

I'm just pointing out a case in which universal consensus was wrong, and that following that consensus did massive damage!

hawk

You seem to be dodging the issue I raised about the interconnection of the scientific method and majority, scholarly consensus as well as the the fact that results and opinion may be transient. The implication of what i am saying, despite comments made by others such as aramis, is that both sides may well be wrong. I personally feel the truth is probably between the two extremes and that the jury is still out. I reject out of hand the wackos on the left and right and prefer to take a middle course between the extremes. In any case, the scientific method is indductive by irts very nature and any conclusion is always subject to change on the basis of new research or evidence.

Actually the measurements show a cooling trend for the past 7 years, not 2.

As I quoted earlier:

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930.

The data show periods of warming and cooling. It is logical to look for a pattern, but so far none has been discovered. While it is always appropriate to be good stewards of God's gifts there is no reason for anyone to run around and claim the end is near with global warming (or "climate change", which is the new term since global warming is not happening and we are at the same temperature we were at in 1930). Those interested in science might go back and follow the links from my earlier post.

Please explain the science behind the loss of 20% of the Polar ice cap in 30 years. There has never been such a fast loss in the many past millennia.

20% of Polar Ice cap vanishes since 1979 [ecoble.com]

Please explain the science behind this ultra rapid loss of the polar ice caps.

I.F.