September 20, 2004
CHICKEN LITTLES
Afraid of global warming? Chill out (Neil Collins, The Telegraph, September 20th, 2004)
Kyoto ranks as the most expensive confidence trick pulled on the world since Yalta in 1945. The IPCC's science is nothing of the kind, being merely a series of "scenarios" of what the weather might be like at the end of the century. Since it's hard enough to predict it for the middle of next week, to say that there are difficulties in long-term projections is putting it mildly.As Martin ÅÅgerup, president of the Danish Academy for Futures Studies, has said: "We simply do not know how much warmer the climate will be in 2100. In fact, the degree of (compound) uncertainty is so large that the mere exercise by the IPCC of providing temperature intervals is highly misleading and provides phoney confidence."*
The evidence that the world is warming is now pretty conclusive, but it's far from clear why, and the consequences are not obvious, either. Kyoto fingered CO2, perhaps because burning all that fossil fuel must surely do something bad, and every schoolboy knows about the greenhouse effect.
A warming world will melt the icecaps, and raise sea level, won't it? Well, not so far. Nils-Axel Möörner, head of paleo-geophysics at Stockholm University, has been studying the subject for 35 years. As he puts it: "No one in the world beats me on sea level."
He's been to the Maldives, often tipped as the first place to disappear under the waves, and can find no evidence that it's doing so. Satellite altimetry has only been going for 14 years, but it tells the same story.
That so much of the world wilfully downplays the threat of Islamic-sponsored terrorism and nuclear war in the Middle East while remaining lathered by a discredited artificial doomsday scenario proves that not only the left, but also the international scientific community, is quite willing to sacrifice objective truth for political and institutional gain. One might almost say it constitutes a measurable and testable proof that science is driven by faith. What strikes most about this issue is not the scientific debate, but the rage so many feel in the face of good news. Undoubtedly many of the pious reacted similarly when theologians began questioning the doctrine of a literal, fiery Hell, but at least they weren't presented with temperature records by scientists returning from an on-site study.
This issue has long moved out of the fevered imaginations of doctrinaire activists and is a genuine concern of the misinformed majority. It plays a major role in political popularity and affects international relations and reputations. So why are conservative politicians so reluctant to attack with the scathing verve and eloquence of Mr. Collins?
Posted by Peter Burnet at September 20, 2004 9:59 AM"One might almost say it constitutes a measurable and testable proof that science is driven by faith."
One might much more accurately say it constitutes measurable and testable proof that "Global Warming" has not the first thing to do with science.
To read what does: http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1296101,00.html
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at September 20, 2004 12:23 PMJeff-
Than why are "scientists" forever proclaiming computer models in support of man-induced global warming? Who's the final gate-keeper of "science".
The defintion of science has been a moving target for some time now. Enough, already!
Posted by: Tom C, Stamford,Ct. at September 20, 2004 12:33 PMWho's the final gate-keeper of "science".
Other scientists. It's a decentralized, self-correcting system. (Which doesn't mean it's always correct at any specific time.) If a scientist tries to make his name by peddling b.s., some other scientist is sure to try to make his own name by shooting it down.
The article doesn't mention that the Martian icecaps are retreating, indicating the sun's output might have more to do with Earth's temperature than SUVs.
Posted by: PapayaSF at September 20, 2004 1:46 PMTom:
Did you get that? It is a self-correcting system policed by selfless truthseekers which is never responsible for, or even connected to, bad things, except when it is wrong, in which case it isn't science anymore.
Posted by: Peter B at September 20, 2004 2:17 PMIt's only self-correcting if it is in the interest of other scientists to self-correct. But just as it's hardly in the interest of psychologists to label psychology as useless, so would it not be in the interest of climatologists to say that the only reason they are getting money is a silly waste of time.
Posted by: Timothy at September 20, 2004 2:32 PMEspecially when a Bjorn Lomborg comes along with well documented apostasy. I find that most scientists' first impulse is to side with the Pope against Galileo.
Posted by: Jeff at September 20, 2004 2:52 PMselfless truthseekers
Straw man. Who ever said that? Scientists are human, with all the fallibility that entails.
except when it is wrong, in which case it isn't science anymore
Says who? Lots of scientific research is "wrong" in one way or the other. That doesn't, in and of itself, make it non-science.
Posted by: PapayaSF at September 20, 2004 8:56 PMHere's a nice site about how global warming might affect sea levels:
www.eng.warwick.ac.uk/staff/gpk/Teaching-undergrad/es427/bitsandpieces/SeaLevels/sealevelfaq.html
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 21, 2004 12:17 AMTuvalu -- a nation that has little reason to admire the West -- has been singing the blues for years about the possibility that it will disappear, and last week scolded the world (not that the world paid much mind) for not (except for N.Z.) offering citizenship to Tuvaluans whose homes are submerged.
But, then came a sea level scientist from the U. of the S. Pacific to say that sea levels are going up some places, down others.
It gets complicated. Sea level on Maui is rising because the mountain I live on is so heavy it is sinking into the seafloor.
But the seafloor is stiff, so that the lever effect is raising Kauai about 200 miles away, so the sea level is dropping there.
Some low islands may, in fact, disappear pretty soon. The Low Archipelago (Tuamotus) were underwater as recently as about 800 years ago.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 21, 2004 2:13 AMWhy would Tuvalu be upset with the West ?
They're a nation that should not be, and most of their income derives in whole or part from the US.
A rising ocean is indeed a threat to them, but even without global warming, one killer storm, with a huge storm surge, would wipe out 90% of them.
Who thought that living there permanently would be a good idea ?
That's who they should be mad at.
Lou-
Marx's dialectical materialism, Freud's psychoanalysis, Margaret Sangers's Eugenics, etc., were all thought at one time to be based on the highest science. Theory became practice and `voila! millions of people became material on which to experiment. Many of the current crop of global warmers would be the first to decry the non-science of the past while touting their models as proof of the need for some kind of international bureaucracy to cure the palnet's ills. Humility works wonders in battling the ego with too many Ph.d's
Posted by: Tom C, Stamford,Ct. at September 21, 2004 3:49 PMBeing self-correcting doesn't mean it won't go off on weird tangents in the meantime before the self-correcting reins it in.
Often it means waiting until all the Old Guard of scientists (who have a stake in the existing theories and explanations) die off.
Posted by: Ken at September 21, 2004 7:56 PMMichael, in the 19th century, Peruvian blackbirders kidnapped virtually the entire population of Tuvalu, which had been living there just fine for at least centuries, and murdered them, including all the chiefs, which meant, since Tuvaluans couldn't write, that their culture was wiped out.
I'm sure Tom C. will now remind me that Stalin killed more people.
So he did, but he never came close to what the Christians of Peru did, proportionally.
I know a few Tuvaluans. If I had to characterize them in a word, it would be 'resigned.'
Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 22, 2004 9:33 PM