GW Skeptics vs Scientific Concensus

[Rezwan]

So many raging debates converge here.

The other rager is uncertainty and predictability. Some attempts are made to be very logical, in an area where logic…falters.

An event of interest: http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/limits-of-understanding

This statement is false. Think about it, and it makes your head hurt. If it’s true, it’s false. If it’s false, it’s true. In 1931, Austrian logician Kurt Gödel shocked the worlds of mathematics and philosophy by establishing that such statements are far more than a quirky turn of language: he showed that there are mathematical truths which simply can’t be proven.

Whatever that means. And Taleb’s quote is also amusing:

A scientist talking about uncertainty, incompleteness, unknowledge, & ignorance, is like a psychopath talking about compassion.

and

Saying “the mathematics of uncertainty” is like saying “the chastity of sex” -what is mathematized is no longer uncertain, & vice versa.

I think it really gets down to humoring people in the face of uncertainty. Some people need to be humored more than others.

Some see the possibility in these wacky, uncertain propositions, finding it an excellent excuse to clean house and try something differently.

[Brian H]

vansig wrote: In a different thread, there is a raging debate about CO2, and whether it has an effect or no, and whether there is transparency or secrets kept, in the field of climatology. that debate is slightly more appropriately placed here.

So,
Given a spinning sphere, period=24h, radius=6371km, albedo=0.367, at 1AU from the Sun, atmosphere scale height=7 km, and known concentrations of various gases, it should be possible to calculate the contribution of each one on temperature from their absorption spectra. This is an incomplete model, certainly, but regardless of validity we should be able to learn something from it.

So: what then, does it say, about the effect of GHG concentrations, eg CO2 between 200 – 1000 ppm, upon average global temperatures?

http://www.te-software.co.nz/blog/auer_files/image001.gif

Surely the transparency exists in the research to make it possible for any ordinary person, like me, to run this?
Surely I dont need to join some club, and make an oath of silence?
Surely I can publish, even self-publish, all the results and the code for verification, if i write it myself?

Nope.
Here’s what genuine physicists say: (excuse the Germanic English)

“… it can be shown that even within the borders of theoretical physics with or without
radiation things are extremely complex so that one very quickly arrives at a point where
verifiable predictions no longer can be made. Making such predictions nevertheless may be
interpreted as an escape out of the department of sciences, not to say as a scientific fraud.”

From http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4

Also,

Thus there is simply no physical foundation of global climate computer models, for which
still the chaos paradigma holds: Even in the case of a well-known deterministic dynamics
nothing is predictable [201]. That discretization has neither a physical nor a mathematical
basis in non-linear systems is a lesson that has been taught in the discussion of the logistic
differential equation, whose continuum solutions differ fundamentally from the discrete ones
[202, 203].
Modern global climatology has confused and continues to confuse fact with fantasy by
introducing the concept of a scenario replacing the concept of a model.

A statistical analysis, no matter how sophisticated it is, heavily relies on underlying models
and if the latter are plainly wrong then the analysis leads to nothing. One cannot detect and
attribute something that does not exist for reason of principle like the CO2 greenhouse effect.
There are so many unsolved and unsolvable problems in non-linearity and the climatologists
believe to beat them all by working with crude approximations leading to unphysical results
that have been corrected afterwards by mystic methods,
flux control in the past, obscure ensemble averages over different climate institutes today, by excluding accidental global cooling results by hand [154], continuing the greenhouse inspired global climatologic tradition of physically meaningless averages and physically meaningless applications of mathematical
statistics.
In conclusion, the derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global
warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science.

the natural greenhouse effect is a myth beyond physical reality. The
CO2-greenhouse effect, however is a “mirage” [205]. The horror visions of a risen sea level,
melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious con-
sequences of fictitious physical mechanisms as they cannot be seen even in the climate model
computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate mod-
els, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse
gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo-explanations, which are
not part of the academic education or even of the physics training. A good example are the
radiation transport calculations, which are probably not known by many. Another example
are the so-called feedback mechanisms, which are introduced to amplify an effect which is
not just marginal but does not exist at all. Evidently, the defenders of the CO2-greenhouse thesis
refuse to accept any reproducible calculation as an explanation and have resorted to unre-
producible ones. A theoretical physicist must complain about a lack of transparency here,
and he also has to complain about the style of the scientific discussion, where advocates of
the greenhouse thesis claim that the discussion is closed, and others are discrediting justified
arguments as a discussion of “questions of yesterday and the day before yesterday”[25].

And finally:

The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric
effect has a physical basis. This is not the case. In summary, there is no atmospheric
greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering
thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting
solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.

[Phil’s Dad]

Breakable wrote:

Ignorance is thinking that something less than the precautionary principle can protect the public.

I would argue that knowledge is something more than the precautionary principle. I would have to further argue that there is as yet little evidence that the precautionary principle has protected the public. The risk is that an over zealous or under-informed application of it could do more harm than good.

Can we agree on a definition of the precautionary principle? You seem to like Wikipedia – their current definition;

“The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.”

I quote this “as is” without prejudice but I can work with it for now if you will.

On another thread I pointed out that more people are dying each year in Africa right now, directly or indirectly from lack of affordable energy, than the worst case predictions say will be harmed by AGW 100 years from now. Yet there are still those who would restrict growth in energy provision in that continent.

If we apply the precautionary principle to the policy of restricting energy provision where it is so desperately needed – and with the associated and undeniable risk of immediate and continued harm to those peoples – then the burden of proof that no harm will come of it lies firmly with those proposing the restrictions. I am clear in my mind that it is not being applied in that way and is not therefore protecting the public.

Does you(sic) experience suggests that lobbying and corruption cannot tilt any decision towards business interests where there is no clear cut boundary? Lets imagine a softening of Precautionary principle : “precautionary approach”. So now government can decide if economic costs are larger than public benefit. Basically inflating economic costs (which cannot be verified), can prevent any action.

I have no experience of corruption but a great deal (on the receiving end) of lobbying. On the whole it serves to inform decision makers of the opinions and stake-holding of the various groups affected by the decision. That is a good thing surely, as long as care is taken to ensure all voices are heard. Far better to make an informed decision that to exist in some sort of unapproachable bubble.

It is however a fact that governments are already free, under the precautionary principle as defined above, to behave in the way you suggest. Economic mismanagement can and does lead to every bit as much harm to the public as other factors. It is therefore perfectly legitimate, rather than the extreme view that one factor outweighs all others, to weigh those economic and other factors against each other and come to a compromise which is in the best overall public interest. As you said in another thread – “actually I think any extreme is usually bad.”

[Phil’s Dad]

Rezwan will let me know if I am raging. :cheese:

[Brian H]

Phil’s Dad wrote: Rezwan will let me know if I am raging. :cheese:

You are not. Taking precautions against CO2 controls is essential, and must be pushed immediately with every resource at our command.

[Rezwan]

Brian H wrote: You are not. Taking precautions against CO2 controls is essential, and must be pushed immediately with every resource at our command.

And to ensure that we have every resource at our command available to take precautions against CO2 controls, we must establish a rigid, exhaustive resource control program. I shall call Al Gore immediately to get started on this.

[Phil’s Dad]

Precautionary offsets?

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote: Nope.
Here’s what genuine physicists say: (excuse the Germanic English)

“… it can be shown that even within the borders of theoretical physics with or without
radiation things are extremely complex so that one very quickly arrives at a point where
verifiable predictions no longer can be made. Making such predictions nevertheless may be
interpreted as an escape out of the department of sciences, not to say as a scientific fraud.”

From http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4

I am sorry to set an impossible standard for you, but could you please post some non-refuted criticism (and preferably from non biased sources):
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gerhard_Gerlich#Refutations

Gerlich was a member of the European Science and Environment Forum. The agenda of this group was to discredit government safety regulations and reports on such things as genetically-engineered bovine growth hormone, pesticides, public smoking, and global warming.

[Brian H]

Rezwan wrote:

You are not. Taking precautions against CO2 controls is essential, and must be pushed immediately with every resource at our command.

And to ensure that we have every resource at our command available to take precautions against CO2 controls, we must establish a rigid, exhaustive resource control program. I shall call Al Gore immediately to get started on this.
Nope. Just sue and prosecute the CO2-fraudsters like Gore, Stern, Mann, Jones, and Hansen into impotence.
E.g.:

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fears soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of anthropogenic global warming fears. [… Prominent Scientist Fired By Gore Says Warming Alarm ‘Mistaken’ & Gore laments global warming efforts: ‘I’ve failed badly’ – Washington Post – November 11, 2008 ]

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man-made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained. [Note: Here are the results a Google Scholar search on Theon. – Theon’s complete written correspondence to EPW reprinted at the end of this report. ]

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote. [Note: NASA scientist James Hansen who runs NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has created worldwide media frenzy with his dire climate warnings, his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fear, and his claims that he was allegedly muzzled by the Bush administration despite doing 1,400 on-the-job media interviews – See: Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom – Get the Facts on James Hansen & UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for ‘high crimes against humanity’ for spreading doubt about man-made global warming – June 23, 2008 & NYT’s Revkin chides Hansen for promoting sea level claims that are at upper boundary of what is ‘even physically possible’ (Note: Headline re: Revkin and Hansen corrected) ]

Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.

“As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research,” Theon wrote of his career. “This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles,” Theon added. (LINK) Theon also co-authored the book Advances in Remote Sensing Retrieval Methods.

Theon was elected a fellow of the American Meteorological Society, given the NASA Exceptional Performance Award twice, elected an Associate Fellow of the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics, and awarded the AIAA’s Losey Medal for contributions to airborne remote sensing. He was also awarded the Radio Wave Award by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications of Japan for contributions to the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission — a joint NASA-Japanese Space Agency satellite. Theon has authored or coauthored more than 50 NASA Reports, journal articles, monographs, chapters in books, and edited two books in the scientific literature.

Hansen ‘is a political activist who spreads fear’

Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s Apollo 7 also recently chastised Hansen. “Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data contradict him,” Cunningham wrote in an essay in the July/August 2008 issue of Launch Magazine. “NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science,” Cunningham wrote.

[vansig]

Brian H wrote:

Surely the transparency exists in the research to make it possible for any ordinary person, like me, to run this?
Surely I dont need to join some club, and make an oath of silence?
Surely I can publish, even self-publish, all the results and the code for verification, if i write it myself?

Nope.

So, what you’re saying is, there is nothing to learn from the exercise, and if i have the audacity to write up a GW calculator and attempt to publish, then it’ll be called unscientific, and i’ll not be invited to the cool parties anymore.

🙂

[Phil’s Dad]

Phil’s Dad wrote: Precautionary offsets?

OK here’s how it works. If Breakable (say – purely for example) wants to do something “precautionary” with a clear conscience, he can buy 100 Precautionary Offsets (P Off’s for short) from me at $10 each and I will commit – in order to restore the natural balance you understand – to immediately do something rash with his $1,000. That way everyone is happy and the world is saved again. (Al would be proud) :smirk: 🙂 🙂 😆 😛 :red: :zip:

[Breakable]

Phil’s Dad wrote:
I would argue that knowledge is something more than the precautionary principle. I would have to further argue that there is as yet little evidence that the precautionary principle has protected the public.

I would not argue with you on that. Maybe there is some evidence, I did not look for it, but the evidence that I saw here is clearly tainted with bias. Still if you want evidence then you are welcome in the world of science. The best evidence comes (I think) from controlled experiments. I hope it is out of the question to reproduce some scenarios that the precautionary principle should prevent?
So what is left is data gathering from historical events and simulations which are hard to reconcile with reality as the GW issue well describes. Do you think such uncertain data is any better than the random choice or the blind precautionary principle?

Phil’s Dad wrote:
…
On another thread I pointed out that more people are dying each year in Africa right now, directly or indirectly from lack of affordable energy, than the worst case predictions say will be harmed by AGW 100 years from now. Yet there are still those who would restrict growth in energy provision in that continent.
If we apply the precautionary principle to the policy of restricting energy provision where it is so desperately needed – and with the associated and undeniable risk of immediate and continued harm to those peoples – then the burden of proof that no harm will come of it lies firmly with those proposing the restrictions. I am clear in my mind that it is not being applied in that way and is not therefore protecting the public.

Yes energy is an issue in Africa, but GW is an issue as well. So now a country in Africa is building a coal plant somewhere inside. Should they consider “Precautionary principle” – I think it is their business on what principles they rely. On the other hand if a country like USA want to interfere in foreign interest I think they should apply their own principles.
Now lets say a different scenario USA sponsors international AID to an African country – a concentrated solar power plant or PV panels for rural homes, a gas power station, wind-belt generators for lighting or maybe a FF plant someday. Should they apply their own principles? Probably they should.
So I guess the question is : can you use “Precautionary principle” for evil? I think it is possible, but much harder than “Precautionary approach”.

Phil’s Dad wrote:
I have no experience of corruption but a great deal (on the receiving end) of lobbying. On the whole it serves to inform decision makers of the opinions and stake-holding of the various groups affected by the decision. That is a good thing surely, as long as care is taken to ensure all voices are heard. Far better to make an informed decision that to exist in some sort of unapproachable bubble.
It is however a fact that governments are already free, under the precautionary principle as defined above, to behave in the way you suggest. Economic mismanagement can and does lead to every bit as much harm to the public as other factors. It is therefore perfectly legitimate, rather than the extreme view that one factor outweighs all others, to weigh those economic and other factors against each other and come to a compromise which is in the best overall public interest. As you said in another thread – “actually I think any extreme is usually bad.”

I am not saying all Lobbying is evil, just that Lobbying can be often unsymmetrical and that makes it bad. If you have a well supported group on one hand and uninformed public on the other how can you find some middle ground? Especially when there would be no mandate to protect the public, but just to prove that it can be uneconomical.
Basically what I see here is “Economic mismanagement” issue vs “Safety of population” issue. Yes probably wasting the funds is pretty bad, but how can you evaluate the cost of even one human life? It is around 195,946.00 usd. I expect a discount if calculating in bulk.

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote:
…
Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fears soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” …

My new hobby, look at the person behind the statement:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/so_who_is_john_s_theon.php

Also the other bunch:

[Phil’s Dad]

Breakable wrote:

I am sorry to set an impossible standard for you, but could you please post some non-refuted criticism (and preferably from non biased sources):

There must be very little that is non-refuted in the GW Skeptics vs Scientific Concensus space

sourcewatch

Try http://shillwatch.wordpress.com/. They examine left-leaning as well as right-leaning set ups. (They have a nice exposure of Sourcewatch for example)

[Breakable]

Phil’s Dad wrote:
OK here’s how it works. If Breakable (say – purely for example) wants to do something “precautionary” with a clear conscience, he can buy 100 Precautionary Offsets (P Off’s for short) from me at $10 each and I will commit – in order to restore the natural balance you understand – to immediately do something rash with his $1,000. That way everyone is happy and the world is saved again. (Al would be proud) :smirk: 🙂 🙂 😆 😛 :red: :zip:

This might actually work.
The question is who guarantees in case of default?

[Author]

Posts