http://www.conservativeforchange.com/201....

By Roger F. Gay

Is it still called “disruptive climate change”? I'm no longer trying to keep up with changing preferences in terminology. Cow dung by any other name still stinks. Let's encapsulate the new, nEW, NEW!!! global warming “science” argument and see why realists are losing.

If you've been reading lately, you'll know that all the little global warming Nazi dictators have been through PR psychotherapy and are suddenly the most reasonable people on the planet; except that they still keep telling us, quite contrary to real-world observation, that there's incontrovertible evidence that human activity is going to make Earth uninhabitable if we don't enrich the Political Class much more than in the past.

There is now a broad acknowledgment among warmers that there is a great deal of uncertainty in predicting climate change. I'm going to give away the punch line before I explain. This isn't a scientific journal and I don't want anyone to have difficulty with this. That warmers face a “great deal of uncertainty in predicting climate change” means that they can't predict climate change. That's the real underlying scientific fact. They never could.

So, let's just say we want to keep up the momentum of the PR campaign, but now based on the fact that we must acknowledge that don't have a clue. How does uncertainty help, you might ask?

Let's say that 100 years from now, the average temperature could be the same as it is now. It could also be as much as 5 degrees lower or 5 degrees higher. No reason to think it will reach either of these extremes, but let's just say that's how uncertain we think (or just say) we are. OK then; how about 2 degrees higher? That fits within the range of uncertainty. So, let's just call that a fair guess.

The real trick is that reality-based scientists have long-since admitted that it is not possible to predict temperature 100 years in advance. So – warmers are still on partially safe ground, in a way. Nobody can prove them wrong. Could be 2 degrees higher. Nobody knows. So, they feel that no one is capable of ending this totally (scientifically) meaningless debate once and for all by proving that the temperature won't be 2 degrees higher in 100 years.

Have we seen this sort of tactic used before? Of course we have. In the article Are Americans Paying Taxes to Organized Crime Syndicates?, I discussed parallels between the global warming scam and the “deadbeat dad” scam of the 1990s.

Back then, the federal government wanted to take over family law, transforming it into a money machine for the Political Class. They set up businesses that provide no real services and pay billions in public funds into them every year. Setting up the scam involved arbitrary increases in the amount of child support ordered, which could then be claimed as “owed” and eventually “collected,” which strengthened the argument for reform (with big numbers) and increased the amount of public money paid to the fake “collection” businesses (based on a percent of “collections” - also known in realist language as “payments”.)

The “scientists” (economists mostly) who are involved in the industry established their own “scientific consensus” about the amount of child support that could reasonably be ordered. They were also uncertain. Family spending data was used to statistically estimate the cost of raising children. The data and type of analysis agreed upon, as an industry standard, did not, and could not yield any real result. Just making up numbers and pretending to do it scientifically was, just as in consensus “climate science”, the only government funded game in town. They made their claim for a higher “estimated cost of raising children.” “Skeptics” lined up to challenge the claim, unfortunately choosing to take the same technical approach. That led to courts being allowed to choose between scientifically baseless guesses by different experts.

A federal court eventually acknowledged that the cost estimates do not have a sound scientific basis; but then rigged the decision, allowing them to remain in force, by granting government the power to choose arbitrarily. (As opposed to rational case-by-case decisions. P.O.P.S. v Gardner: this is also the case that redefined marriage, making it legally no longer a sacred, private institution – for the sake of granting government the power to choose arbitrarily.) The burden was on “skeptics” to prove concretely that their choices were completely wrong. The unfortunate consequence that so many had chosen to repeat their technical approach meant that they could no more prove anything than the industry could. The government won by default.

And this is where the global warming debate sits today. Courts are being asked to decide between a false scientific argument, making ridiculous claims about future weather and claiming the government should have more arbitrary power to deal with it even though they can't, and realists who have no more proof about what the temperature will be in the distant future than the industry insiders. The game is rigged of course, and the government is winning by default.

There are lessons that can be learned from the experience of the child support scam. The first one should be obvious from what's been said already. The only point in repeating the technical analysis performed by the scammers is to show that it is not real science – to show that it is meaningless.

The true motives of the scammers must be revealed. Global warming litigation today isn't about the weather. It's about corruption. This may seem like a difficult step to take against the most reasonable people on the planet. But, without it, the government can claim it's merely making a reasonable policy choice. Courts will then be asked to choose between the opinions of different experts, nothing more. And the warmers do after all, have that “scientific consensus” (that they bought with your money).

The harm that global warming policy will cause must weigh in with extreme importance. This is a much more difficult case than most people probably imagine. Don't be fooled by the fact that it's the Political Class that wants to change the status quo on something as ridiculous as climate policy. The game is rigged. Arbitrary government power and control is the status quo. We're talking about something on the scale of Brown v. Board of Education. A very heavy burden will always be thrown upon the realists to prove their case. Plaintiffs not ready to bear that burden will be assured of loss before arguments are heard.
Posted by Roger F. Gay at 10/12/2010 04:13:00 AM

Quote:

Nobody can prove them wrong. Could be 2 degrees higher. Nobody knows. So, they feel that no one is capable of ending this totally (scientifically) meaningless debate once and for all by proving that the temperature won't be 2 degrees higher in 100 years.

You can stop reading right here.

I can't prove negatives. There really might be an invisible pink unicorn on Uranus (but it's not my job to disprove such a thing)

Quote:

there's incontrovertible evidence that human activity is going to make Earth uninhabitable if we don't enrich the Political Class much more than in the past

The entire environmental movement succinctly summarized in a single sentence! Nice!!

I don't see how ordinary people can really know what to make of global warming.

I'd suggest individuals consider the views of scientists you already respect, including those who work in fields outside of climate related sciences.

Whether the theory is right or wrong, nuclear power should satisfy people on both sides of the argument in the medium term until solar technologies are further developed. The nuclear option has the added advantage that Australians keep getting paid loads of money to dig holes in the ground :)

Eyesopen wrote..

. . . individuals consider the views of scientists you already respect . . .

I don't think I'd be far wrong if I estimated that 99.9% of the population doestn't know the opinion of any scientist, other than what is spoon-fed to them by media - how can you expect them to decide whether they respect them or not?

The success to date of the entire AGW issue is based on an aggressive PR campaign that has convinced the people that "I made an assertion and until the other side can disprove it, I'm correct" is the basis for the scientific method. Sad to say, a position that has reached "conventional wisdom" status by means of a successful PR campaign is extremely difficult to dislodge using honest techniques.

Also, I don't believe your assumption is correct, re: nuclear power. I expect that the type of person taken in by the AGW position, is also highly likely to be one who is taken in by the "all nuclear is bad" propaganda. (Besides, how can Australian mining help us in the US - doesn't China already own Australia?)

Peter, while the green movement does currently oppose nuclear power, they may be forced to consider it as an option if electricity prices go too high because of commercially uncompetitive solar power. While voters may be scared of nuclear power they are more scared of high power bills. Hopefully solar can be made more efficient (I see printed solar panels are on the way) and it can make a large contribution to our power needs.

I looked up the opinions of a few high profile scientists and they mostly seem to support Global Warming: Stephen Hawking(physics), Robert Winston(medicine), Susan Greenfield(neuroscience).

David Bellamy(botanist) once supported global warming, now vehemently rejects it.

I particularly like Richard Dawkins(biologist) who supports global warming.

Would anyone care to list other notable scientists and their stance on this controversial subject?

Eyesopen -

Obviously, I can speak only for myself, but your use of the term "support" is entirely improper. Further, from your post, you seem to think that the "science" of AGW is determinable via a majority vote of "notable scientists".

I respect Hawking for his contributions to cosmology, etc. However, as I am unaware of any research or analysis he has done in the area of AGW, I don't consider his opinion in that area to be worthy of any particular "respect" (as in "his support lends credence to AGW"). If he were to come out with "I've reviewed the data, found no obvious flaws in the data sets, have convinced myself that the problems others have identified with the data sets are not germane, and verified for myself that the conclusions for AGW are consistent with the physics of the areas in which I have expertise", then I'd take his "support" as a significant factor in forming my own opinions. To the best of my knowledge, his "support" has not taken the form that I consider meaningful.

Absent extremely unusual circumstances of which I am currently unaware, I consider the "support" of a medical doctor, a neuroscientist, botanist, or biologist to be worthy of not much more respect than the "support" of a movie or rock star in this issue.

Peter, if you place no value on the opinions of climate scientists, and you place no value in the opinions of other respected scientists, who is left to help us form our own opinions. Some of the people I listed are very intelligent, critical thinkers - I would value their opinion on a range of subjects, trusting them to apply the same critical thought process that they use in their chosen professions.

The average person can look at the data but still needs help interpreting it, especially with something as controversial as the causes of climate variation.

Eyesopen -

You did not read correctly.

First of all, from what I've been able to discern, "climate science" isn't science. Google "climate science degree" and read several descriptions at random about just what a degree in climate science means. I have and the following is representative of about a half-dozen I picked at random:

Quote:

The master of science in climate science and policy is a new degree focused on providing the trained workforce critical for businesses, non-profit organizations, and governments to confront the increasing challenges posed by climate change.

As you can see, this is not the study of the physics of the contributors to climate, but something more akin to "economics, engineering, and business aspects of a phenomenon that has been pre-assumed to be fact". (Note: there may be "climate science" programs that actually involve the theory, research, and experimentation of the physics (and possibly other hard sciences, e.g., math, space physics, etc. of climate, but I have not yet seen one that I find credible as a "science" curriculum.) Thus, no matter how famous, someone who calls himself a "climate scientist" has already compromised his credibility in my view.

When I want credible information about climatological history, I have no problem accepting the research and opinions of botanists or biologists (until I find that they fudged their tree-ring analyses), or a chemist who researches ice core constituents or chemical changes in sedimentary layers, or a historian who compiles historical accounts of temperatures, or an oceanographer who obtains data about water surface temps, etc., etc.

However, when I want evidence about what may cause climate change, I want a "hard" scientist who can come up with reasonable explanations that are verifiable (or falsifiable) via basic energy balance models, chemical process equations, solar flux models, ocean current modeling, atmospheric physics models, etc., etc.

Obviously, I am not aware of everything published in the area of climate change, but of the things I am aware, none of the pro-AGW stuff has had compelling (to me, at least - BTW, I've got a physics background) evidence based on hard science principles that are not contradicted by other evidence that is just as, if not more, compelling.

I find your comment

Quote:

Some of the people I listed are very intelligent, critical thinkers - I would value their opinion on a range of subjects, trusting them to apply the same critical thought process that they use in their chosen professions.

extremely troubling. I, too, know and have worked with many intelligent, critical thinkers whose opinions I respect in their fields of expertise. Yet, I would not automatically lend any credence to their opinions outside their demonstrated field of expertise. Just as an example, Denninger has persuaded me that he is a very intelligent, critical thinker, but I would lend zero credence to his opinion about the best way to perform brain surgery.

And yes, the average person can look at the data but he still needs help interpreting it. The problem is that all of the "experts" who want to interpret it for others as "demonstrating" AGW, as far as I can discern, are suspect because of demonstrated dishonesty (e.g., East Anglia, Mann, Bradley, Hughes, etc.) or have obvious financial conflicts that make their motives suspect. I lend a lot more credence to an atmospheric physicist who publishes high altitude balloon data which contradicts the global warming premise when he knows full well that he will lose his funding for doing so, than to a self-described "climate science researcher" who publishes a paper that supports the issues that will result in getting greater funding.

Views, opinions and "consensus" do not constitute proof and hence are irrelevant, regardless of the credentials of the people involved.

The only thing that matters is: does AGW theory explain ALL evidence and observations? And the answer to that is, NO.

Hell, Obseedian, I'm real easy - I'll settle for much less than all!!

I'd be willing to take AGW more seriously if it explained a significant fraction (not even close to all) of the evidence and observations based on solid physics or other hard science principles that were confirmable by any disinterested scientist with public and freely accessible raw data.

Then, at least, it would be in the realm of science rather than religion.

Yeah...it's a bit of a problem when it can't explain the fall in CO2 levels from 3000 ppm to 350 ppm and hardly any change in temperature over the last 600 million years (except for changes caused by continental drift)

The thing that gets me is we have basicly the smallest concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in the history of the planet.

All the eras with very lush plant growth had orders of magnitude higher CO2 levels.

Plants thrive on CO2... they're extracting the C out of the CO2 and using it to build themselves for christ's sake.

And now it's a ****ing poison?

The simple problem with AGW is all their models completely FAIL at making accurate predictions.

You would get an F in high school science if you presented that. But hey whats a little fraud when the stakes are that if you con enough people you get to dictate every aspect of their lives ? That is the true end goal for the AGW statists. Period.

As others have said. The AGW theory is not even wrong. Therein lies the problem.

If I was a believer, someone of the calibre of David Bellamy would make me doubt my position. If I was an unbeliever, someone of the calibre of Richard Dawkins would make me doubt my position.

I think it's difficult to know who's right but easy to know who's wrong - the people with stiff opinions, on either side of the fence, are wrong.(as the fortune cookie says: stiff in opinion, often wrong) There's some evidence to suggest humans are causing global warming but it's far from conclusive - I think agnostic is the way to be.

^^^
Nonsense. It's not about caliber or whether opinions are "stiff" or whether people are on either side of the fence. All those things are irrelevant to the Scientific Method.

CO2 isn't the only human effect on the environment. Land use changes are an other one (e.g. large scale deforestation in North America to make way for farmland). And there is evidence such land use changes have tainted ground temperature measurements, making them virtually useless.

I expect David Bellamy and Richard Dawkins are very practiced in the scientific method, therefore greater value must be placed on their opinion than, for example, us people jibbering on at the Ticker forum.

I expect that Bellamy and Dawkins would be aware of the many factors contributing to climate change prior to forming their opinion.

I know an old retired engineer that used to work at Morton Thiokol and made rocket boosters (space shuttle). Very smart dude, and was hardcore republican. He 100% believes and preaches about CO2 global warming. I can discuss engineering, real life problems, and theory all day. But get into global warming and he's taken over by a cult...it's that simple.