Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Climatologist Roy Spencer Rains on Global Warming Model Predictions
University of Alabama Huntsville climatologist Roy Spencer weighs in as a global warming "moderate" in the New York Post:
Computerized models of our climate have had a habit of "drifting" too warm or too cold. This because they still don't contain all of the temperature-stabilizing processes that exist in nature. In fact, for the amount of solar energy available to it, our climate seems to have a "preferred" average temperature, damping out swings beyond 1 degree or so.
I believe that, through various negative feedback mechanisms, the atmosphere "decides" how much of the available sunlight will be allowed in, how much greenhouse effect it will generate in response, and what the average temperature will be.
Finally, remember that phrase, "the Earth's greenhouse effect keeps the Earth habitably warm?" I'll bet you never heard the phrase that is, quantitatively, more accurate: "Weather processes keep the Earth habitably cool."
Were it not for weather, the natural greenhouse effect would cause the surface of the Earth to average 140 degrees. Wonder why we never hear that fact stated?
I believe that when the stabilizing effects of precipitation systems are better understood and included into the models, predictions of global warming will be scaled back.
Despite current inadequacies, climate models are still our best tools for forecasting global warming. Those tools just aren't sharp enough yet.
UAH climatologists Spencer and John Christy are the principal investigators who have been compiling data from NOAA satellites on global temperature trends since 1978. Their data indicates that global average temperatures are going up at about 0.14 degrees Celsius per decade which is at the lower end of the climate model projections.
See whole Spencer article here.
|2.27.07 @ 8:06AM|#
That old "butterfly's wing" canard has more to do with the crudity of the models than the delicacy and interdependence of the global ecosystem. You may commence hurling abuse now.
|2.27.07 @ 8:23AM|#
Interesting that the original populariser of the 'self-regulating earth' meme, James Lovelock, is now one of the biggest promoters of the idea that a disruptive change to the climate is now possible/likely...
|2.27.07 @ 8:49AM|#
The atmosphere "decides" to allow a certain level of sunlight,
"self-regulates" and "prefers" certain temperatures. For those who
recall me arguing that Gaia worship isn't a factor in the global
warming debate, I'll make a special exception for Roy "NY Post
thinks I'm a moderate" Spencer.
He's certainly right that we don't know quite a bit about weather
processes. Who wouldn't admit that? Our models are just best
guesses, but that doesn't mean we should have faith that the Earth
will self-regulate (or if you prefer, God will regulate the
climate).
Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 8:53AM|#
Chris S.,
I prefer the Gia woeship. Angelina Jolee was so hot in that.
|2.27.07 @ 8:57AM|#
Yes, funny, isn't it, Tim, that somehow the Earth manages to
stay much colder, even to the point of having Ice Ages, than the
greenhouse effect would seem to indicate.
So, yes, they did happen, Tim, and that is why we shouldn't fly
into a frothing panic over the current warming trend. Its not
exactly the first one the planet has seen, after all.
|2.27.07 @ 8:58AM|#
Global Warming Heretic! He must be stoned into silence!
There is absolutely no dissent from the man-made global warming
meme; it is a consensus. All dissent must be crushed, because
consensus means 'unanimity', not 'majority of opinion', despite
what dictionaries say.
Furthermore, never in the course of history has a scientific
consensus opinion later been proven wrong.
|2.27.07 @ 8:59AM|#
There is absolutely no dissent from the man-made global
warming meme; it is a consensus. All dissent must be crushed,
because consensus means 'unanimity', not 'majority of opinion',
despite what dictionaries say.
Fortunately, straw is a renewable resource, so burning it is
carbon-neutral.
Fenevad|2.27.07 @ 9:04AM|#
That old "butterfly's wing" canard has more to do with the crudity of the models than the delicacy and interdependence of the global ecosystem. You may commence hurling abuse now.
Actually, the point is that no matter how detailed the model is, it
is never detailed enough because the smallest uncertainty is
multiplied over time and the system loses coherence. It's not the
crudity of the models per se, but rather that sufficient
accuracy is impossible. In other words you can't build a
model that isn't crude...
The interconnectedness bit and interpretation is quite popular
because of a prevalent misunderstanding of the NOVA special on
chaos theory a number of years ago that really introduced the
"butterfly effect" with respect to weather (as opposed to the older
usage in time paradox science fiction based on a Ray Bradbury short
story). It stated that the motion of a butterfly's wing in Japan
could change the weather in New York two weeks later (if I remember
the analogy right), but the point of that was not that everything
is interconnected, but rather that even the smallest change in the
system anywhere would destroy the predictive ability of the model
down the road.
Unless something has changed in recent years that I don't know
about (I stopped following all of this when I went from marine
biology to linguistics), the basic result was that climate
scientists were saying that you can predict weather with better
than 50% accuracy only about seven days out and that any
incremental linear increases beyond that would be accomplished only
by exponential increases in the amount of data and processing
required to achieve them.
The net result is that that butterfly in Tokyo means that it is,
for all intents and purposes, impossible to know the weather in
Toronto in two weeks. Or think of it another way: the only system
that can accurately predict the weather at any given moment in time
in the future is the earth's weather system itself. Anything else
is an approximation with a sharp drop off in accuracy after about
seven days
Tim Lambert|2.27.07 @ 9:05AM|#
Err, Dean, if the planet self-regulates like Spencer claims then
we wouldn't have had those ice ages. But we did, so he's
wrong.
James Annan has the
technical details if you are interested.
Fenevad|2.27.07 @ 9:08AM|#
Of course the hope of climatologists is that all those butterflies are so much inconsequential noise in the system when they try to extrapolate long-term trends. That isn't actually such a bad approach because you can observe trends without accounting for all of the pieces. Just because a butterfly in South America might stop a particular hurricane from forming later this year that doesn't mean that other hurricane's won't form or that you can't predict that the season will be a heavy or a weak one for hurricanes...
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|2.27.07 @ 9:10AM|#
The money quote:
Contrary to popular accounts, very few scientists in the world
- possibly none - have a sufficiently thorough, "big picture"
understanding of the climate system to be relied upon for a
prediction of the magnitude of global warming.
bj|2.27.07 @ 9:20AM|#
The reason we have to fight this global warming stuff has nothing to do with the science. If the planet really is heating up from human activity, global capitalism may not be sustainable. Fuck the planet, that's our ideology down the toilet! So science isn't the answer. Slogans and spin are the answer.
|2.27.07 @ 9:24AM|#
Your post fails to note that Spencer and Cristy were wrong about their satellite calculations for years and years. Only under great pressure did they relent and declare their error. Perhaps they are in a similar error now? Their track record is not good.
Walker|2.27.07 @ 9:32AM|#
First there was that crappy Gore thread yesterday (market-based
solutions are fine for us, but they make Gore a hypocrite). Now we
have "science by press release" in which scientists are declared
authorities without any discussion of their track record or how
their observations stand up to peer review.
I thought this place was called "Reason". Clearly, when it comes to
global warming, there is none.
|2.27.07 @ 9:33AM|#
"a silent majority of scientists still think that global warming
could end up falling anywhere between a real problem and a minor
nuisance"
Which means the question is how best to respond to an inadequately
understood, but potentially serious, risk...
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|2.27.07 @ 9:40AM|#
Which means the question is how best to respond to an inadequately
understood, but potentially serious, risk...
Screech and wail.
Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 9:45AM|#
market-based solutions are fine for us, but they make Gore a
hypocrite)
Nice word trickery there. Many of us advocate FREE market-based
solutions. Gore's version of a "market" is a Stalinist based
solution.
Also, you other guys need to stop worrying about butterflies and
start worrying about killer bees!
Grotius|2.27.07 @ 9:49AM|#
Unlike a lot of people I don't know enough about climate science
to make an informed opinion either way.
I would agree though that what goes on in the atmosphere is
probably far more complex than what can be described in a
model.
bj|2.27.07 @ 9:52AM|#
"a Stalinist based solution"
You wouldn't know a Stalinist from a pile of dog shit, you ignorant
fuck.
|2.27.07 @ 9:54AM|#
Spencer and Christy appear to be the honest, dissenting
scientists that so many CEI/AEI PR shills always claim to be. I'm
certainly not interested in conflating the two.
On the merits, yes, the planet has feedback mechanisms that undo
dramatic climate shifts. Unfortunately, these include things like
waiting for the effects of the dramtic climate shifts to wipe out
whatever phenomenon is causing them, then spending several million
years returning to ground state.
Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 9:54AM|#
bj,
Apparently I can identify one well enough. What is that on your
shoe?
|2.27.07 @ 9:54AM|#
Of course the planet regulates temperature. I really don't see any room for debate on something so self-evident. But it's not a thermostat, it's a naturally evolved system. Ices ages are part of the regulatory process.
bj|2.27.07 @ 9:55AM|#
Roy Spencer on other scientific matters:
In support of Intelligent design Spencer wrote in 2005 "Twenty
years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution
versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And
finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as
"fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a
theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific,
than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not
alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject.
Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost
faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the
analytical tools they were taught in college." Wikipedia
|2.27.07 @ 9:56AM|#
What an exhausting conversation to keep having.
Global warming has become an article of faith to too many people to
stop it with simple logic.
The Gorean Creed
We believe in Global Warming
the Sea-Raiser, the All-Powerful,
maker of tsunami and hurricane,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Cause, The Activities of Man,
the lowest of all creatures,
except the ones that are brown.
Gasses from Coal, not Recycling from Blight,
true Cause from true Gasoline,
made, not begotten,
of Driving when One Could Walk;
through Man all pollutions were made.
For us and for our salvation
Gore came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Nader
and the Virgin Chomsky
and became truly political.
For our sake he was un-elected
under Pontius Harris;
he suffered defeat and was retired.
On the third year he rose again
in accordance with the Documentatrians;
he ascended into Hollywood
and is seated at the right hand
of the Film Executives.
He will come again in glory
to judge the polluting and the recycling,
and his kingdom will have a biodegradable end.
We believe in Global Warming, the Destroyer,
and the taker of life,
who proceeds from the Car and the Industry,
who with the Suburbs and the Factory Farm
is worshiped and glorified,
by the prophets of GREED.
We believe in the scientists who agree with us
and our beliefs.
We accept the starvation of Billions,
for the forgiveness of environmental sins.
We look for the return to subsistence farming,
and the whole grain life of the world to come.
Amen.
|2.27.07 @ 10:06AM|#
It's become an article of faith among some that recognizing the
reality of global warming is not based on the science.
And no matter how conclusive the evidence becomes, no matter how
certain the people in a position to understand the science become,
nothing is going to shake the faith of the denialists.
Fortunately, there are relatively few of you left.
|2.27.07 @ 10:07AM|#
Err, Dean, if the planet self-regulates like Spencer claims
then we wouldn't have had those ice ages. But we did, so he's
wrong.
But the fact that we have had ice ages shows that some kind of
feedback loop is keeping our temperature well below the greenhouse
gas/solar radiation level.
And the fact that the ice ages and warm periods come and go
indicate that something other than CO2 affects, which is to say
"regulates", our weather.
C'mon, Lambert, the fact that he put the word "decides" in quotes
shows that he is not meaning it in the Lovelockian Gaia-worshipping
sense.
The rest of his comments shows a nicely scientific critique of the
shortcomings of the global warming climate models, indicating that,
wonder of wonder, people making careers out of predicting global
warming tend to overstate its likely extent.
|2.27.07 @ 10:08AM|#
It's become an article of faith among some that recognizing
the reality of global warming is not based on the
science.
I would say just about everyone recognizes a warming trend is
underway.
And its hardly the first one the planet has ever had.
Its the claimed explanation for it that some of us have a problem
with. Try to keep that in mind, joe.
|2.27.07 @ 10:11AM|#
Spencer's quite a humorist. Inspired by the Onion apparently: http://www.ecoenquirer.com/
|2.27.07 @ 10:22AM|#
bj,
One of the most prominent scientists global warming nay-sayers (if
the most prominent) is an ID guy? That's hilarious.
Grotius|2.27.07 @ 10:23AM|#
It seems that there are number of issues being conflated
here.
(A) Is the Earth experiencing climate change (I really do not like
the term "global warming")?
Yes. But that is hardly surprising given the history of this
planet's climate.
(B) Is the change rapid in nature?
Probably no more rapid than some periods in the planet's
history.
(C) Is it at least in part a result of man-made processes?
Probably. Though there are also likely other factors.
(D) What future problems (or benefits) can we expect from these
changes?
This is where scientists seem to be all over the map.
|2.27.07 @ 10:25AM|#
RC,
The scientists who have spent the last few years studying the issue
for the IPCC report with over 90% certainty that the current
warming trend cannot be explained without the contribution of
man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
Whether you agree with the overwhelming majority of climate
scientists or not, that's not "faith." There is solid evidence for
the theory, far more than for the alternate theories, and simply
dismissing the evidence and all of those who are convinced by it as
"faith-based" is demonstrably untrue.
Grotius|2.27.07 @ 10:31AM|#
R.C. Dean,
Given our carbon output over the past two centuries it wouldn't be
particularly surprising for our efforts to have some effect on the
climate. I mean sure, we can't (as far as I know) directly measure
that effect, however, you can make a number of sound inferences
based on the climate history data (e.g., direct measurements,
proxies, etc.) that we have.
Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 10:32AM|#
It's become an article of faith among some that recognizing
the reality of global warming is not based on the
science.
Well, I am not one of them. As I have mentioned many times here and
other places, I know that the glaciers are still receeding every
time I see a recent photo of Lake Michigan.
|2.27.07 @ 10:34AM|#
joe,
I don't deny the existence of Global Warming (out of deference to
faith, I think it should be capitalized), I just refuse to see it
as a moral or ethical failure on the part of the Western
industrialized nations. I think it should be approached as a
scientific problem, rather than proof of a decay in Gaian
values.
Global warming is real. A good bit of evidence exists that human
activity is the cause of it. But, from those two conclusions, all
the prescriptions of environmentalism do not logically flow.
It's the obscene glee in blaming the West for Global Warming and
the curious coincidence that the ONLY WAY to CURE the SIN of GLOBAL
WARMING is to revert to exactly the agrarian lifestyle that has
been advocated by fundamentalist deep ecology since the 1960s that
makes me pause and doubt.
Global Warming is the answer to any critique of the deep ecology
lifestyle or "up not out" urbanism. It's a stick to beat any one
who doesn't want to live like they want them to.
|2.27.07 @ 10:42AM|#
Sugarfree
That was great. I see the non christian libertarians are on the
string today. But the creed really does say it all.
Joe
You really are an idiot but you do keep things moving.
|2.27.07 @ 10:44AM|#
Sugar Free,
Do you think Dr. Robert Hansen of NASA believes in a return to a
medieval economy? Al Gore? Robert Reich?
How do you reconcile the environmentalist left's infatuation with
advanced hydrogen, hybrid engine, wind, geothermal, and solar
tehnology with your idea that global warming is a stalking horse
for the "deep ecology" extremists?
You know, the Nazis concluded that smoking caused lung cancer, and
did a pretty good job folding that discovery into their "social
hygeine" theories. So what? Smoking really does cause cancer.
|2.27.07 @ 10:48AM|#
For those who are interested in talking about market-based solutions to global warming, you might want to check out this recent thread that I started at Jim Henley's place.
|2.27.07 @ 10:49AM|#
"Roy Spencer on other scientific matters:
In support of Intelligent design Spencer wrote in 2005 "Twenty
years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution
versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And
finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as
"fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a
theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific,
than evolutionism. . . ."
Dammit! This is why I rarely cut Bailey and the Very Respectable
People he cites any slack. Every time I come out and give them the
benefit of the doubt, I end up getting burned.
Grotius|2.27.07 @ 10:52AM|#
bioligist,
More than likely I left something out, but thanks. :)
____________________________
A few years ago I was a climate change skeptic. Then I did some
studyin' and learnin' and changed my mind.
Anyway, these days it is really the prescription issue that should
be the focus of debate.
Grotius|2.27.07 @ 10:54AM|#
joe,
Well, what he thinks of I.D. doesn't necessarily say anything about
his skills as a climatologist.
|2.27.07 @ 11:04AM|#
Dammit! This is why I rarely cut Bailey and the Very
Respectable People he cites any slack. Every time I come out and
give them the benefit of the doubt, I end up getting
burned.
Oh, I see. So if someone believes, says or does something that some
perceive to be at odds with science we can then ignore whatever he
says or does? Is that the standard you're judging people by now,
joe?
Because if so, that would mean that Mr. Gore has lost all
credibility on the Global Warming issue because his actions are so
clearly at odds with his stated beliefs.
I'm cool with that, because I've always thought Al was a pompous
ass. I'm glad we can all ignore him now.
Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 11:08AM|#
Captain Holly,
Don't forget that Albert Gore, Jr. is also a Christian. Well, he is
four weeks before an election when he is running for something and
has to visit a 'black' Church.
|2.27.07 @ 11:09AM|#
No, it doesn't, Grotius, but I'm just a layman. My ability to
review his hard scientific work in the field of climatology is
limited. I'm basically being asked to give credence to the idea
that a very idiosynchratic stance like Hansen's should be treated
as if it poses a significant problem for the overwhelming
scientific consensus.
If I'm asked to take seriously someone who is so outside of the
scientific mainstream, and who is aligned with a political movement
that stands out for its intellectual dishonesty and ideological
aversion to evidence, that mofo better be like Caesar's wife. The
fact that he's an IDer, and worse, that he states that his
application of scientific principles led him to reject
"evolutionism" (a made up word by a political movement) in favor of
"Intelligent Design" (another made-up word by a political movement)
throws up all sorts of red flags.
If a significant number of scientists who don't have red flags
sticking out all over their bodies start saying that Spencer's work
poses a real problem for our understanding of global warming, I'll
start paying attention. The guy with the mimeographed flyers at the
subway station might be right, too, but I'm not going to take the
shopping cart lady's word for it.
|2.27.07 @ 11:10AM|#
joe,
I didn't say that they wanted that. I don't think most of the
reverends want that, but once they've converted everyone, it's easy
enough to pontificate about lifestyle choice. That's when the
radicals will slide under the door.
I like to make the religion analogy because they have such a holier
than thou attitude about it all.
"I drive a hybrid, I'm so much better then you gas guzzlers."
"You drive a hybrid? I'm all electric, you must be some sort of
monster."
"You have a car? I ride my bike everywhere."
"You ride a bike made in a factory? I whittled mine out of
wood."
"You cut down a tree to make a bike? I made mine out of
driftwood."
"You don't walk everywhere?"
As for alternative energy sources, I think environmentalists like
them for their inefficiencies. It will take decades for alternative
energy sources to rival the energy density of carbon, decades the
reverends can use to spread envrioluddism. If they were serious
about alternative energy, pebble-bed reactors or solar energy
satellites would be on the table (or at least discussed
more).
Oh, and I don't get to work by riding a cigarette.
(Sorry, I know that was flip... at least I didn't scream
GODWIN...)
|2.27.07 @ 11:14AM|#
There are scientists who happen to be creationists but also do
good work in other fields because they compartmentalize.
But if somebody adopts the same role in multiple fields he isn't
compartmentalizing. And if he's ridiculously wrong in one of those
fields (e.g. offering the standard creationist arguments), well, he
loses some credibility.
And if it turns out that some of his more significant work in his
professional specialty was wrong as well, then perhaps he loses
credibility.
The fact that he loses credibility doesn't mean a priori
that people who adopt similar positions are wrong, but it does mean
that they need to find a more credible source. And yes, credibility
does matter. If you're talking about something very technical
you'll always need to place a certain amount of trust in the person
offering the scientific arguments, because you aren't in his
specialty. You could say "Well, instead of trusting, why not see if
his predictions match data, and if others replicate it?" That's
exactly right, but you still need a credible expert to interpret
the data and see if they match predictions. Data is rarely
unambiguous, there are always technical issues to sort out, and
only an expert can tell you whether a correction to the data is
something innocuous (e.g. allowing for systematic features of the
instrument) or something more shady.
Bottom line: If I want to challenge the conventional wisdom in a
field, I'm going to find a credible expert to back me up.
|2.27.07 @ 11:14AM|#
SugarFree,
It must be quite a relief to you that pissing contests about
ideological purity are wholly unknown to libertarians.
"As for alternative energy sources, I think environmentalists like
them for their inefficiencies."
Your entire position rests on your feelings about how your
opponents must really feel.
|2.27.07 @ 11:20AM|#
"If the planet really is heating up from human activity, global
capitalism may not be sustainable. Fuck the planet, that's our
ideology down the toilet! So science isn't the answer."
But capitalism could turn out to be part of the answer to global
warming. What helped us out of the oil crisis in the 70s? At least
in part it was the introduction of the Japanese car into American
markets. I suspect it will be new technologies and markets for
those technologies which will be part of the toolkit that's going
to help us stave off global warming. This is one reason trying to
"slow down capitalism" might be counterproductive. I guess it
depends though on exactly what 'slow down' will mean and how
'capitalism' is interpreted. Development of agricultural products
that lead to greater yields, and thus saves land for forests, could
be part of the global capitalist process we don't want to slow down
if we want to stave off global warming. For just one example.
Another would be some of the technologies and markets for those
that joe mentioned earlier.
Grotius|2.27.07 @ 11:24AM|#
joe,
...like Hansen's...
I thought that we discussing Spencer's work?
If I'm asked to take seriously someone who is so outside of the
scientific mainstream...
I don't know that he is.
...and who is aligned with a political movement that stands out
for its intellectual dishonesty and ideological aversion to
evidence...
I don't if he is or isn't aligned with any political
movement.
Anyway, to my knowledge there is no scientific consensus when it
comes to what I identified as the "prediction" issue. Indeed that
maybe why the IPCC's numbers fall within a range.
Grotius|2.27.07 @ 11:28AM|#
One of the things that should caution us about climate change predictions is the predictions we see in other areas of human life. Indeed, I think it isn't unreasonable to assume that the farther away in time the prediction is and the complex the nature of the system which is the focus of that prediction the less likely that prediction will come true.
ed|2.27.07 @ 11:29AM|#
The tectonic plate beneath California is moving north. Eventually California will have arctic weather conditions. What the hell are we going to do about that?
Grotius|2.27.07 @ 11:30AM|#
My second variable should be something like "the greater the complexity of the system...."
|2.27.07 @ 11:33AM|#
Grotius,
Oops. Spencer, not Hansen.
His statements about the level of inaccuracy in the models, and
therefore the inaccuracy of the predictions in the IPCC report, put
him somewhat outside the scientific mainstream.
"I don't if he is or isn't aligned with any political movement." I
could have phrased that better. How about "...and who's arguments
are used to advance a position advocated by a political movement
that stands out for its intellectual dishonesty and aversion to
evidence..."
Anyway, the range itself is a consensus position. In this case, the
consensus is that predictions can only be made to a certian degree
of precision.
|2.27.07 @ 11:34AM|#
If they were serious about alternative energy, pebble-bed
reactors or solar energy satellites would be on the table (or at
least discussed more).
Yes, where are the protests by environmentalists demanding the
streamlining of design, licensing and building of new nuclear
plants or the doubling of NASA's budget to make solar power
satellites to power all the electric cars that should replace our
gas guzzlers?
|2.27.07 @ 11:34AM|#
"Indeed, I think it isn't unreasonable to assume that the
farther away in time the prediction is and the complex the nature
of the system which is the focus of that prediction the less likely
that prediction will come true."
Sure, as we have no idea of what sorts of new inventions we'll come
up with in the future as well as the spin-offs from those
inventions and so on. We don't know how our new efforts and
technologies will affect the environment or what approaches we'll
have when that happens. Other sorts of future social and
environmental conditions are impossible to factor in when there are
so many unknow possibilities that could take place.
|2.27.07 @ 11:35AM|#
joe,
You can never know how your opponents feel, you can only judge them
by their actions and reactions. Smug comes off them like stink
lines off a cartoon skunk. (Of course, burning straw men does add
to Global Warming, probably.)
As for libertarian pissing contests, yes they are fairly stupid.
Wow, ideological individualists who can't agree... joe, you cut me
to the quick.
As for the semantics of Global Warming versus Climate Change...
I'll stick with Global Warming... I like the irony of the reverends
bitching about it when it's really cold outside.
|2.27.07 @ 11:35AM|#
Al Gore's $30,000 a year electric bill.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659
But don't worry because he buys carbon offsets (penace) to make up
the difference.
Once again:
Warm = Good
Cold = Bad
Really cold = really f***ing Bad
When everyone pushing AGW wants me to pay for something or give
something up and then pay for it, I can't see it as anything other
than the largest scam ever conceived.
Oh and by the way many scientists are Christians. In fact there was
a time that most scientists were Christians. I'm not sure why being
Christian makes you less of a scientist or anything else. (Point
from the Christian libertarian lobby)
Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 11:38AM|#
Oh and by the way many scientists are Christians. In fact
there was a time that most scientists were Christians. I'm not sure
why being Christian makes you less of a scientist or anything else.
(Point from the Christian libertarian lobby)
All this time I was under the impression that I was the lone
Christian libertarian!
My Cl philosophy is: I am saved and I don't care if you are going
to hell.
Kinda like my socially liberal philosophy, but different.
Grotius|2.27.07 @ 11:41AM|#
thwap,
One of the things that Bastiat discussed was the forestalling of
options created by government actions. That doesn't mean that all
government actions are inappropriate, it does mean that one should
be very cautious in their use. So yeah, maybe a government created
carbon market might not be a bad idea, but mandating specific
technologies, etc. not so much.
|2.27.07 @ 11:43AM|#
Yeah, maybe they are stupid, Steven, but are you suggesting that
you can make better threads?
:)
VM|2.27.07 @ 11:45AM|#
"Steven Crane | February 27, 2007, 11:42am | #
These global warming threads are always stupid."
Yes, but when you're here, they're at least fun...
@Grotius | February 27, 2007, 10:23am :
that's a great summary - as you note, it's not exhaustive, but it's
a good start! very nice!
Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 11:45AM|#
Grotis,
So what about the "Great Commission?"
If someone else told them about Jesus and they didn't listen then I
am just wasting my time.
Moving along, nothing to see here.
Grotius|2.27.07 @ 11:48AM|#
Guy Montag,
Yes, but perhaps you'll be the one to plant the mustard seed!
;)
|2.27.07 @ 12:01PM|#
Non sequitor much?
Speaking of non sequiturs, have you tried to follow your
comments in this tread?
:-|2.27.07 @ 12:14PM|#
OK, I'll be the rational one here. Most "disasters" take place in minutes or hours. They are often unexpected and random. And yet we deal with them. Things always get back to normal. People adjust. Now we are threatened with another "disaster" that will occur, the "experts" tell us, not in a day or week, not out of the blue, but exceedingly slowly, over centuries. It will happen so slowly that no one will notice. Mankind will have been adjusting all along, just as it always has, over the millennia. So am I worried? No. And you shouldn't be either. Unless you view mankind as unthinking, irrational brutes. All mankind except yourself, of course.
|2.27.07 @ 12:29PM|#
joe-
No, it doesn't, Grotius, but I'm just a layman. My ability to
review his hard scientific work ...
Oh, well then, let me help you out. I 'do' computer modeling of
very complicated dynamical systems. All models have these
limitations. The models I use are grounded in exhaustively studied
and very well understood systems, and have very well understood
limitations and approximations. Climate modelers are in the
unenviable position of working with more complicates, opaque,
non-equilibrium phenomena. I commend their work, but Spencer's
criticism is valid. And it's one very few seem willing to discuss,
well, I guess until recently. I see this 90% thrown around. It's
most certainly pulled directly from someone's ass; I guess "more
likely than not" isn't as dramatic. From my vast and expert opinion
of computer models - the state of the art in my particular field
(once again, better understood than climate) gives "more likely
than not" precision with soft upper and lower bounds on observable
phenomena. And I'm lucky. I can compare my results with a
statistically meaningful sample of experimental measure
Oh, and I tend to agree that the ID thing is a bit worrisome.
|2.27.07 @ 12:29PM|#
I'm a physicist, and I agree with Steven Crane. This thread has
no relevance to intelligent debate on climate change and CO2.
RealClimate.org is a thousand times more intelligent and
scientific. I question the use of the term "reason" here, and I
question the climate-change denialist's motives.
Yes, we should be building pebble-bed reactors. High-speed
electrified rail would be good for the country, too. We're a nation
in denial about the coming permanent energy crisis.
biologist|2.27.07 @ 12:31PM|#
the major planetary extinction events are estimated to have taken place over thousands of years, even if you can point to a single disaster that instigated the extinctions. the climate change models could be predicting a threshhold event for a disaster.
|2.27.07 @ 12:31PM|#
The part of my comment that was cut from above ... "And I'm lucky. I can compare my results with a statistically meaningful sample of experimental measurement, which still gives a less than satisfactory understanding of the overall predictive value of a given model."
Grotius|2.27.07 @ 12:37PM|#
John P,
And here I thought I was writing something at least partly
intelligent. ;)
|2.27.07 @ 12:44PM|#
I question the climate-change denialist's
motives.
We're a nation in denial about the coming permanent energy
crisis.
You throw in the completely irrelevant issue of "the coming
permanent energy crisis" -- an issue, I might add, that would
automatically throttle down global warming -- and you wonder about
the "climate-change denialist's" motives?
I'll tell you their motives: They are scared to death that massive
changes to the western way of life and the effective impoverishment
of their grandchildren are being smuggled in under the guise of
saving the planet. Your throwaway line about a permanent energy
crisis doesn't help mollify the concern.
|2.27.07 @ 12:52PM|#
Umm. We have a lot of fire and brimstone over a guy who, at the
end of the day, has proposed warming within current model bounds.
If the difference in policy depends on the warming difference
postulated by this guy and the median predicted by the models, that
just indicates clearly that the error bars are too large to make
any expensive commitments.
It doesn't matter who this guy is, only that he is within the self
accepted error of those he disagrees with. You want him out of the
discussion? Get models with narrower error margins.
|2.27.07 @ 1:11PM|#
pigwiggle,
No one is arguing that climate models are unerringly accurate and
precise. The climatologists who use them, and who make predictions
based on their results, certianly don't. That's why they typically
provide their estimates in the form of a range.
|2.27.07 @ 1:25PM|#
It doesn't matter who this guy is, only that he is within
the self accepted error of those he disagrees with. You want him
out of the discussion? Get models with narrower error
margins.
In regard to the scientific and policy questions you are pretty
much spot on.
In regard to the overall quality of science writing "for a magazine
called 'Reason'" (drink!), some of us are kind of like "WTF? Of all
the scientists out there you chose to quote the one who's also a
creationist?"
|2.27.07 @ 1:32PM|#
Christian? What does that have to do with anything?
Not all Christians are Creationists, and if you believe IDers,
their position has nothing - nothing! - to do with religious faith,
but is based on science.
If Spencer had come out with "I believe in the Genesis account of
creation, and reject evolution, because it is my faith. It has
nothing to do with my work as a scientist," that would be one
thing. But he didn't. He said that the applicaiton of his reasoning
skills, and use of the scientific method, led him to believe in
Intelligent Design.
That doesn't speak well of his reason and ability to apply the
scientifid method.
|2.27.07 @ 1:34PM|#
joe-
No one is arguing that climate models are unerringly accurate
and precise. The climatologists who use them, and who make
predictions based on their results, certianly don't. That's why
they typically provide their estimates in the form of a
range.
Well, not exactly. If you are talking about the ranges of climate
sensitivity given in the IPCC - those are based on the differences
between the 'in fashion' models. And any specific model can
certainly give you a measure of error for any given calculated
property, that is, the likelihood of calculating a given quantity
with the same model used in the same way (the error of the
simulated measurement). Neither has anything to do with the
relation between the simulated measurement and the
True value. This is the interesting measure of
error and is unfortunately unknowable. And also very different than
any ranges you see reported.
Grotius|2.27.07 @ 1:46PM|#
thoreau,
I'm not going to defend I.D., but there is no evidence that the
fellow is a "creationist" in the sense that term is generally used
(i.e., young earth creationist).
Anyway, here is the article that the quote is drawn from; the
fellow is apparently skeptical of macroevolution:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I
|2.27.07 @ 1:48PM|#
The Coalition of the Shilling got a little black eye today with
that ID thing.
(Admission: I posted that just so I could use the Coalition of the
Shilling phrase.)
Guy Montag|2.27.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Christian? What does that have to do with anything?
Not all Christians are Creationists, and if you believe IDers,
their position has nothing - nothing! - to do with religious faith,
but is based on science.
Calm down joe. Go see the other thread. You and your friends have
convinced me to embrace this voluntary carbon management idea lead
by Albert Gore Jr.
I have so embraced it that I am now content with my electric range,
rather than dreaming of a gas line piped into my place. I have even
abandoned my idea of converting my hybrid 1972 Dodge Charger to
steam power.
Happy now?
Grotius|2.27.07 @ 1:53PM|#
joe,
Probably a better way of saying it is this way:
Not all Christians are Young Earth Creationists. Clearly all
(most?) Christians* are creationists.
*Who the heck is a Christian has of course been the subject of
debate since perhaps the death of Christ (whenever that was - 60
BCE? 33 CE?).
|2.27.07 @ 3:36PM|#
Hi all: Late to the parade here--was at a conference on whether
or not terminal patients should have access to drugs not yet
approved by the FDA until now.
Spencer and ID -- He's wrong.
Spencer and Temperature -- lots of peer reviewed articles and
nearly 30 years of experience in the field. As one commenter
noted--his views are well within the "consensus" -- As I take it he
inteprets the empirical data as suggesting that the increase in
global temps are likely to be at the low end of the consensus
range. As for correcting their old data, Spencer and Christy did,
which is what scientists are supposed to do, right?
But still, ID? Aw crap!
uncle sam|2.27.07 @ 4:03PM|#
Patrick J. Michaels has this to say:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8021
|2.27.07 @ 4:06PM|#
Ron-
Yep, correcting data (well, more accurately, correcting the
analysis of the raw data) is fine.
There's nothing wrong with being a hold-out who's reluctant to
revisit the original analysis. Data should be re-analyzed if/when
an error is spotted, not just because the result is anomalous.
Doing the re-analysis and publishing it is a sign of honesty.
Still, when somebody was a hold-out in his field, then moves to the
far end of the consensus, then turns out to be a crank in regard to
another field, well, it's a questionable track record. In the end,
of course, it's results and replication that matter. But when
trying to work one's way through a controversy, when trying to make
sense of things in the midst of that process, credibility
does matter. The reality is that even practicing
scientists, in working their way through a problem, have to take
some experts at their word, i.e. pick collaborators with skills
that we lack and trust their work. Now, the continuance of that
trust is conditional on their work checking out, but we begin the
process by looking at credibility and qualifications. We don't just
latch onto the first collaborator who says "Oh, I know something
about this!"
I'm not saying you just latched onto him. I'm mostly addressing the
question of whether we should even care about credibility (which
runs the risk of being a self-reinforcing consensus) or instead
just look at replication. Replication is indeed the ultimate test
over the long time horizon, but in a period where results are up in
the air (or at least up in the air within some range of values),
credibility is a useful tool for navigating uncertainty. (Although
trust must be tempered with skepticism.)
|2.27.07 @ 4:12PM|#
Do any other people here trained in science have a problem with
the term "consensus"? To me, it is a political term, not a
scientific term. How about the "90% confidence" claim from the
people who didn't bother to verify the "hockey stick" graph, which
turned out to be bogus. Why should I trust these people. If your
showcase piece of "evidence" (scare quotes because models are not
scientific evidence; they are educated speculation) turns out to be
bogus, I'm going to have a hard time giving you the benefit of the
doubt. Personally, I don't see how anyone can have a good idea of
what's going to happen. We simply are not smart or knowledgeable
enough.
And fuck you all for calling skeptics deniers (you know who you
are). Stop being sheep and fucking think for yourself! If you
aren't skeptical of these wild claims, you obviously are far too
credulous. The "consensus" may be right, but "90% confidence" is
basically a guess. It's still a long way from proven fact. When I
see real scientific evidence, I'll immediately lose most if not all
of my skepticism, but, for now, I'll stay skeptical as I was
trained to be.
|2.27.07 @ 4:15PM|#
Still, when somebody was a hold-out in his field, then moves
to the far end of the consensus, then turns out to be a crank in
regard to another field, well, it's a questionable track
record.
Dr. T, you know damn well that Newton was a freaking religious
nutcase. Was his science suspect because he was a crank?
|2.27.07 @ 4:21PM|#
"Still, when somebody was a hold-out in his field, then moves to
the far end of the consensus, then turns out to be a crank in
regard to another field, well, it's a questionable track
record."
It doesn't make his work wrong, btw. That's for the scientists to
review and figure out.
But when a layman like me is asked to believe that there is a major
flaw with the overwhelming consensus position of the vast majority
of the scientists in the field, well, you'd better not roll out
some weirdo.
|2.27.07 @ 4:23PM|#
Do any other people here trained in science have a problem
with the term "consensus"?
It's a short-hand for "Range of conclusions supported by the bulk
of the published data."
Dr. T, you know damn well that Newton was a freaking religious
nutcase. Was his science suspect because he was a crank?
As I understand it, Newton's religious nuttery mostly pertained to
things that (at the time) were not amenable to experimental
investigation. He wasn't always right about science, but at least
in the early part of his career he wasn't questioning
experimentally (or observationally) validated theories on religious
grounds. He kept the science and religion separate (at least in the
most active stage of his career) and had a track record of either
being right or at least being wrong on tough questions.
Grotius|2.27.07 @ 4:24PM|#
The Real Bill,
I almost brought up Newton denying the trinity, etc. a couple of
times in this discussion but decided not to. Anyway, as far as I
know most of his religious oriented worked happened after he had
some sort of break, indeed after his work on optics, etc.
|2.27.07 @ 4:25PM|#
But when a layman like me is asked to believe that there is
a major flaw with the overwhelming consensus position of the vast
majority of the scientists in the field, well, you'd better not
roll out some weirdo.
As an analogy, I have some concerns about the standard
interpretation of quantum mechanics. Mind you, I'm not
convinced that my colleagues are wrong, I'm open to the
possibility that the misunderstanding is mine, but I have some
questions.
When dealing with this matter, I generally cite J.S. Bell, not some
guy who thinks that the whole universe is just, like, an electron
in some other atom.
|2.27.07 @ 4:27PM|#
The Real Bill,
People who eagerly swallow statements that cast doubt on global
warming, but who reflexively dismiss the much larger body of
evidence in favor of global warming, are not "skeptics." They're
deniers.
Grotius|2.27.07 @ 4:29PM|#
The Real Bill,
Also, his alchemical work fit right in with the times.
Indeed, modern science has much to thank folks like John Dee for,
yet he was an occultist as well as being a mathematician and
astronomer.
|2.27.07 @ 4:32PM|#
Do any other people here trained in science have a problem
with the term "consensus"?
Yes. It's just a variant of the old appeal to authority. My PhD
advisor would pull your ears off if your explanation for doing this
or that was some big name did the same thing. Replace big name with
two not so big names, or a hundred nobodies and you have the same
stupid reason. He got the habit from his advisor who,
coincidentally, was a nobel laureate in chemistry. I guess it's
hard to appeal to authority when arguing with one. Anyway, laymen
(read politicos) don't generally understand the machinations of
science. A whole lot of scientific census rise and fall, it's
what's let in the end that matters. Problem is, if the consensus is
that we have a catastrophic problem, how long do you wait for
certainty? There needs to be a very careful balance between the
potential damage of the problem, that harm of the cure, and the
veracity of the evidence. Good luck.
|2.27.07 @ 4:37PM|#
When dealing with this matter, I generally cite J.S. Bell,
not some guy who thinks that the whole universe is just, like, an
electron in some other atom.
Or, you know, those quacks Podolsky, Rosen, and what's his
name.
|2.27.07 @ 4:38PM|#
Oh, come on, I've always taken consensus to mean "Range of conclusions supported by the bulk of experimental data." I was always taught that questioning the consensus is fine (indeed, the best part of my thesis basically found a loophole in the consensus on a particular matter), you'd just better make sure that you've investigated thoroughly before disregarding so many other experiments and calculations. It isn't about authority, it's about the accumulation of evidence.
|2.27.07 @ 4:40PM|#
If the existence of the consensus was offered as evidence that
global warming is real, that would be an appeal to authority.
Because these scientists believe global warming is happening, it is
true.
But that's not happening. The evidence that global warming is
happening is found in the millions of pages of data and information
those scientists have produced, and the relative paucity of
countervailing data and information.
The consensus is brought up merely to point out how incredibly
lopsided the state of the data is.
|2.27.07 @ 4:43PM|#
EDIT: Maybe it would be better to say that I found an exception
to a major (and accepted, i.e. validated) result, because I
considered a case that had not been previously investigated. A
"loophole" in the "consensus" is poor phrasing.
Anyway, I have no problem with using the word "consensus" as a
short-hand for "the range of conclusions consistent with the bulk
of the published data." It isn't about authority, it's about
evidence. If almost every experiment and calculation reaches
approximately the same number but you get a different number, you'd
better make sure you understand what was going on in those other
investigations before concluding that you have found something
that's new and correct. Those other pieces of work are
evidence, and you can't just disregard evidence, you need
to understand it and understand the source of discrepancies before
you reach a different conclusion.
biologist|2.27.07 @ 4:48PM|#
thoreau:
are you familiar with Bayes' Theorem? do you use statistical
analysis in your research?
|2.27.07 @ 4:50PM|#
My PhD advisor would pull your ears off if your explanation
for doing this or that was some big name did the same
thing.
Actually, there is one very good reason for doing things that
others have done: To facilitate comparisons.
While every investigation should address some new point, there will
be similarities between your work and somebody else's work. If
feasible, it can be good to use the same computational tools as
other people, or use most of the same experimental techniques, so
that any novel discovery you make can be attributed to the specific
variables that you changed or new elements that you introduced.
Otherwise, one could always wonder whether your results are an
artifact of a non-standard technique.
|2.27.07 @ 4:54PM|#
biologist-
I rarely use statistical analysis. That may sound strange, but
physicists generally study systems where we can address many
variables, so we don't use the t-tests and all the other things
that other scientists do. It's more about seeing whether the result
fits a curve or something. And in our theories we're usually
calculating distributions rather than p-values.
But yes, I am familiar with Bayes' Theorem, and I'm not suggesting
that we should bias our results with a popularity-driven prior or
anything like that.
I'm just saying that quibbling over the word "consensus" is missing
the point. If I put forward a result that challenges lots of other
investigations, and somebody says "Well, what about those other
calculations and experiments that have been done?" I can't just
accuse my critic of appealing to authority. He's bringing forward
data, not just authority, and I have to be able to identify the
differences between my work and the other pieces of work, so I can
explain which result is most applicable to the question at
hand.
Grotius|2.27.07 @ 4:56PM|#
thoreau,
It isn't about authority, it's about the accumulation of
evidence.
In the short term at least it is often about authority. Indeed
authority and the sorts of behavior that humans are prone to will
block out evidence (at least again over the short term).
Grotius|2.27.07 @ 4:58PM|#
Of course there are pluses as well as minuses to the often status driven and just as often conservative nature of science.
thoreau|2.27.07 @ 5:00PM|#
how do you determine if your empirical results adequately match
the theoretical curve?
"I'm not suggesting that we should bias our results with a
popularity-driven prior or anything like that"
actually, that's what I was going to suggest.
|2.27.07 @ 5:04PM|#
how do you determine if your empirical results adequately
match the theoretical curve?
R^2, chi^2, stuff like that. To be honest, as a theoretician I
don't have to fit many experimental results to curves. Indeed my
latest work doesn't even deal with fitting to curves. The systems
aren't really amenable to highly detailed and quantitative
investigations, so I deal with qualitative results: Are most of the
molecules found over here or over there? When you change a rate
constant does the gradient become larger or smaller? Is the
gradient larger for this molecule or that molecule? Stuff like
that. Those are the only questions that can be easily addressed
experimentally, so those are the sorts of results that I try to get
from my calculations.
|2.27.07 @ 5:20PM|#
It isn't about authority, it's about the accumulation of
evidence.
Yeah, I don't think so. When most folks talk about consensus in the
context of anthropogenic global warming what they are
saying is that most of the people who know better than I do (the
scientific community) believe it. And when we are talking about
public policy that's good enough. People doing the science
obviously can't get away with that. What troubles me, though, is
that activist type folks are using the scientific consensus as a
rhetorical point, like "most scientists believe in man made GW so
it is a fact and we should do X". Policy should be based on on the
consequences of the problem (for which there is a consensus), the
ills of the policy, and the veracity of the evidence for the
problem (which is unconcerned with consensus). It doesn't seem that
many folks want to consider the last bit. It's like "the models are
flawed, so do nothing", or "there is a scientific consensus so
anthropogenic GW is fact". That's all I'm getting at.
|2.27.07 @ 5:32PM|#
pigwiggle-
It may very well be that the evidence on some key points is all
over the map and hence there is no "consensus" in the manner that I
was using the term above. That is a perfectly valid point to
raise.
What was getting me was the arguments that the notion of a
consensus is somehow 180 degrees opposed to the conduct of good
science. It isn't. There's nothing wrong with looking at a large
body of fairly consistent evidence and taking that as a given
during an investigation, as long as you are open to reconsidering
that assumption if your results cannot be reconciled with the
assumptions. I do that every day and you do too, I'm sure.
I think that saying "there is a consensus in favor of [insert
conclusion here]" is different than just saying "there is data in
favor of..." There's lots of data out there about all sorts of
things, and a cherry-picking of it can support almost any
hypothesis. A "consensus", as I've understood it, refers to a
conclusion (or range of similar conclusions) consistent with a
large body of experimental results.
I'm not sure that "consensus" is the best word for that
situation, I'd be fine with a better word. "Theory" might be
better, but too many people equate "theory" with "wild-ass
speculation." (See: creationists)
In any case, I'd rather critique the available studies and whether
they are consistent, rather than say "Look! He said 'consensus'!
He's only interested in popularity!"
|2.27.07 @ 6:00PM|#
Wow, good points by both pigwiggle and thoreau. I'm still in
pigwiggle's camp, though--consensus is a BS term with respect to
science. A recent example (late 80s to today): The Cosmological
Constant. When I began studying physics, it was considered at best
a fudge factor, at worst, a goof or mathematical artifact or
something. This was the "consensus" view. Later, people started
thinking it might have a real meaning. Now, it's all the rage.
Science is about proof, period. Consensus is nothing but a lot of
people with a belief, and we all know how often
beliefs are disproven. (Or maybe we all don't know this; the
"memory hole" is quite big for some.)
joe, I won't even bother to discuss this issue with you at all.
Everything you think you "know" about this issue is just recycled
media BS. I'm not insulting you; I'm sure you know a lot of things
about which I'm ignorant. I am not a denier. I'm a skeptic. I think
I believe that warming is happening, but the degree to which humans
are causing it is not known, no matter what the IPCC says. And I
say believe about warming because measuring global average
temperature accurately is far, far more difficult than you've been
led to believe. And even if it becomes extremely accurate, the data
from the past is seriously suspect, or at best, incomplete.
Seriously, how does any self-respecting scientist just take this
data as a given? If I had to bet, I'd bet that most real
scientists have far more doubts than they express. Most people
don't want to rock the boat. Most people, unlike me, actually care
what other people think about them. (Okay, I do care whether
certain people think I'm a decent person or not, but I never just
agree so that I can "get along.")
|2.27.07 @ 6:07PM|#
I should say that maybe my standard of proof is too high. I just
saw, in a rather short time, so much damn politics in science that
it made me sick (and a lot of sexism, too, but that's another
story). The discussions on how to word a grand proposal for the big
$$$ was enough to make me distrust even scientists (and there are
no professions more trustworthy than the physical sciences).
As fictional character Greg House says, "Everybody lies."
|2.27.07 @ 6:08PM|#
Real Bill, I don't like getting hung up on a word. If "consensus" means "Most popular opinion" then yeah, it's BS. OTOH, if it means "A set of similar conclusions drawn from the bulk of the experimental data", i.e. a consensus of people analyzing data, then it can mean something. Rather than getting hung up when somebody says "consensus", I'd rather ask "What is this consensus based on?" It gets us back to the realm of evidence, which is where you want to go, but it keeps us clear of pedantic disputes.
|2.27.07 @ 6:08PM|#
"grand proposal"--I previewed, yet that Freudian slip still made it through (although grand is way too small).
Paul|2.27.07 @ 6:08PM|#
I guess those Ice Ages never happened...
Or were they ever reversed, either. The planet does in fact, get
colder or warmer at many different times throughout history, even
without human interference.
What spencer is talking about are the complex feedback mechanisms
on the earth, variables that most models are weak on, or don't take
into account altogether.
Also note, he doesn't say the earth isn't warming, he's merely
indirectly pointing out that maybe the worst case scenario figures
in the IPCC summaries might be, in the words of Spencer "scaled
back".
|2.27.07 @ 6:10PM|#
Okay, T. I think the consensus is based upon weak data. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong, though.
uncle sam|2.27.07 @ 6:30PM|#
The temperature record does show warming.
Most everyone accepts that the earth has been warming for 100s and
1,000s of years with occasional dips, but mostly warming since
glaciers roamed the earth.
So the skepticism is not about WARMING!
It's about interpretation. If the earth has been wrming for
thousands of years, why is recent warming to be blamed on
technological civilization?
What caused anomalous dips in climate trends?
Should higher particulate emissions be allowed?
Yes, when incomes are at stake, many will lie, even many
scientists. They have expenses too.
fyodor|2.27.07 @ 7:19PM|#
Later, people started thinking it might have a real meaning.
Now, it's all the rage.
Sounds like all you're saying there is that the consensus changed.
Which is normal and natural to happen in science. Maybe it'll
change again and the former view will become the consensus. The
meaningful question is whether the majority view of scientists on a
given matter should be held as meaningful to lay people not
equipped to study the matter in the same way the scientists are. I
think the obvious answer is yes, whenever there has been serious
study of a matter. Sure, heretics can be later be deemed correct,
and their position taken to be the new consensus. But is this the
norm, or is the norm that when a scientific consensus has been
reached, it is more likely to still be the consensus years later
than heretical views at any given time. Unless you can show that
scientific consensus is at least as likely to change as stay the
same, your point that it does sometimes change is ultimately
meaningless, at least for the lay person trying to decide which is
more likely correct, the consensus/conventional wisdom on
one hand or the heretical or alternative views on the other. If,
however, it's not true that scientific consensus is more likely to
stay the same as change, if it's as likely or moreso to change,
that would seem to throw into question the very concept that
science can make meaningful predictions about the world! That's why
scientific consensus is meaningful. Sure it may change, but it's
all we have at any given time. And just as it's always a
better bet to bet on two dice rolling a 7 than a 12 even though
they do come up a 12 sometimes, it would logically seem that
believing the scientific consensus at any given time would be the
better bet than believing the heretics.
Now, if one has some particular expertise such that one can make
one's own critical analysis of the scientific consensus, then
scratch all that. But for the lay person forced to believe one
"camp" or another, the so-called "popularity contest" is actually
the quite logical way to go.
Grotius|2.27.07 @ 9:38PM|#
People often have a hard time accepting that there is just as much bullshit, bootlicking, groupthink, etc. in science as is any other human institution. Given that science is the most powerful tool for understanding we have that should tell you something about human beings. ;)
|2.27.07 @ 10:43PM|#
The matter has been settled -
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18175/page3/
"Benford has a proposal that possesses the advantages of being both
one of the simplest planet-cooling technologies so far suggested
and being initially testable in a local context. He suggests
suspension of tiny, harmless particles (sized at one-third of a
micron) at about 80,000 feet up in the stratosphere.
...
You could do the whole planet for a couple of billion [dollars a
year]"
On to the next freedom stealing scam...
|2.28.07 @ 1:34AM|#
"Dr. T, you know damn well that Newton was a freaking religious
nutcase. Was his science suspect because he was a crank?"
Newton was also an astrologer.
Weren't there leading scientists who signed on to the *science* of
eugenics as well?
Some of the smartest people can be pretty dumb outside their own
field. Russell and Chomsky come to mind.
|2.28.07 @ 8:36AM|#
eugenics (as understood in the vernacular) would work, so I
don't understand the scare quotes. it's just considered unethical
to practice on human beings. most people don't have a problem with
eugenics when we talk about selectively breeding cattle for
particular traits or selectively breeding crop plants for disease
and pest resistance. just don't call it eugenics.
in fact, the Journal of Heredity was originally titled
Journal of Eugenics
|2.28.07 @ 11:17AM|#
Sorry, biologist,
Just sheer ignorance on my part. Thanks for the clarification.
|2.28.07 @ 12:03PM|#
It's completely reasonable to talk about the "science" of eugenics with scare quotes because as practiced in the first half of the 20th century (when it was most prominently applied to humans) it really was a pseudo-science. There was generally no real attempt to determine if traits had a genetic basis, or even if the traits could be meaningfully defined at all (such as "feeble-mindedness," or my personal favorite, "love of the sea"). There was also no attempt to sort out confounding environmental factors. The importance of these considerations in quantitative genetics was known at the time; they were generally just ignored by practicing eugenicists.
biologist|2.28.07 @ 2:49PM|#
again, eugenics was a general term that came to have a specific,
unsavory meaning because of the activities of the Nazis and the
like.
just because some people practice a particular field of science
crappily and unethically doesn't make it into a field of
"science"
|2.28.07 @ 3:34PM|#
Actually, the term eugenics was coined in the late 19th century by people specifically talking about human breeding - it was not a more general term already in existence that just came to be associated with humans. When people use(d) the term eugenics, the vast majority of the time they were/are talking about humans, and about the eugenics programs of the early 20th century in the US and Europe. So eugenics most definitely is a field of "science," with all that those quotes imply.
biologist|2.28.07 @ 7:39PM|#
you're partly right, and I'm not being completely clear.
selective breeding of non-human animals or plants for specific
traits is functionally the same as breeding human animals for
specific traits. eugenics is the term coined for the special case
of artificial selection for humans. some traits can't easily be
selected for, no matter the species, not just humans. it depends on
the nature of the genetic control over the trait (single gene vs.
polygenic) and the genotype-by-environment interaction.
nonetheless, selective breeding could work in humans with varying
degrees of ease, depending on the trait. it is still science, not
"science"
the term originated with Darwin's cousin Galton, but the idea did
not. still, the term has always had different meaning to different
people
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
|2.28.07 @ 9:55PM|#
You're still mistaken about the meaning of the term eugenics,
biologist (or perhaps wikipedia is mistaken, if this is where your
definition comes from). It isn't just the same thing as selective
breeding in domesticated plants and animals, but applied to humans.
It has a more circumscribed meaning dealing (mostly, although not
exclusively) with very complex, poorly defined, and highly
environment-dependent behavioral traits such as
"feeble-mindedness," propensity to break the law, and "love of the
sea." It is also almost always meant to refer to a specific time
period, roughly the 1880s-1950s, when eugenics arose as a (pseudo)
scientific movement, became popular, and thankfully fell out of
favor. Occasionally someone refers to a "new eugenics" or something
of that sort, but "eugenics" by itself is more restricted. This is
how the term is/was used in the most directly relevant scientific
fields, most importantly evolutionary biology. There may be
distorted/non-standard uses in popular discourse, but if we're
talking about eugenics as a scientific movement it seems pretty
clear that the precise scientific definition is the relevant
one.
It isn't pseudoscience because humans are being bred for specific
traits; obviously that can be done quite effectively for certain
traits, as evidenced by the exceptional diversity of some
domesticated plant and animal species and their divergence from
wild progenitors (although it would take a bit longer when the
target species has an 18-20 year generation time). It's
pseudoscience because the traits in question are very poorly
defined, extremely dependent on environment, and may not even have
a genetic component - exactly the sorts of traits one would not
choose to artificially select for against. So, to sum up, eugenics
= "science."
biologist|2.28.07 @ 10:46PM|#
if it's "science", explain the Journal of Heridity,
originally titled Journal of Eugenics. if the science was
poor by today's standards, that's because genetics was in its
infancy.
also, you refuse to consider that your definition of eugenics is
not the only definition of eugenics.
Here, from my copy of A Dictionary of Ecology, Evolution, and
Systematics, 2nd ed., Lincoln, Boxshall, and Clark. 1998.
Cambridge Press.
"eugenics: The science of breeding; the application of genetic
principles to the improvement of the heriditary qualities of a race
or breed"
no mention of humans there. if eugenics is a pseudoscience, I doubt
the term would be included in a modern dictionary of science. the
term is not commonly used because of negative historical
connotations, not because it's not a valid science. but please,
continue to try to teach me about biology. sorry if I'm not willing
to accept your unreferenced assertions as fact.
|2.28.07 @ 11:43PM|#
Wow - feeling a bit pissy this evening, are we? Two comments
about your Dictionary of EES definition of eugenics:
1) It should be pretty obvious that terms that are no longer in
common use, or in use at all, should still be included in a
dictionary of technical terms. Sometimes people working in a field
like to read papers that are more than a few years old (sometimes
more than a few decades old), and when they do they generally find
it convenient to understand the terminology.
2) It also shouldn't be too surprising that a 20 word definition
wouldn't capture the full detail of a very complex topic. I have
that book too, and consult it frequently; it can be helpful for
thumbnail definitions on simple topics, but it obviously isn't
useful for any meaningful detail. If you want to perform a test
that's actually informative with regard to how the term is used,
you might consider performing a literature search. For example, if
you input "eugenics" as a topic keyword into Web of Science, you
will get 485 results, all of which as far back as I scanned (the
first 200, going back to the 1990s) use eugenics in the sense that
I have described it, relating to humans and behavioral traits
(usually; some dealt with rare recessive genetic disorders which
would also be extremely difficult to purge through selective
breeding). Most of these papers deal with the history or philosophy
of the movement (often in journals specifically devoted to history
or philosophy of biology); several mention a "new eugenics" in
reference to recent events. So yes, the technical scientific
definition of eugenics does in fact relate to humans, and generally
to complex/vague behavioral traits.
Regarding your assertions concerning Journal of Eugenics (or Annals
of Eugenics, or Eugenics Quarterly, or any other out-of-use journal
name) - if you have any familiarity with scientific literature
you're surely well aware of the fact that articles published in
journals don't always directly and specifically relate to the title
of the journal. There were several seminal population genetics
papers published in the Annals of Eugenics in the 1930s-1950s. They
have nothing at all to do with eugenics beyond the fact that both
deal in some sense with the inheritance of genetic factors and
evolution in populations.
"if the science was poor by today's standards, that's because
genetics was in its infancy."
No, as I mentioned in my first post, quantitative and population
geneticists were already well aware of these issues, at least
qualitatively, very early in the 20th century, and by the 1920s a
rigorous mathematical framework was being developed. There were at
least a few prominent geneticists who were very vocal opponents of
eugenics for these very reasons. But as tends to be the case with
pseudo-sciences, non-scientific issues trumped legitimate
scientific argument.
"also, you refuse to consider that your definition of eugenics is
not the only definition of eugenics."
No, I refuse to consider that a definition of eugenics that differs
significantly from the accepted scientific definition of eugenics
is meaningful in a discussion about eugenics as a science. You're
essentially saying, "That's just, like, your opinion, man!" to a
broadly accepted technical definition.
And finally, complaining about my unreferenced assertions when your
"references" are wikipedia and the Dictionary of EES... it's a
little tacky; you could maybe aim just a wee bit higher for your
sources.
biologist|3.1.07 @ 10:05AM|#
if the technical definition of eugenics is restricted to humans,
it seems unlikely that the Dictionary of EES would leave out the
two words necessary to restrict the defintion to humans. just
because the common use of the term is restricted to humans, doesn't
mean that that is the only acceptable use of the term. words can
have a broad sense and a strict sense, and a common sense and an
obscure sense. the common use of the term may well be the strict
sense of "humans only", but that's not the technical definition.
it's also not impossible that the meaning of a term should change
subtly over time.
theoretical population geneticists were indeed aware of those
problems, but how many empirical studies had been conducted? how
does one determine a priori which traits are polygenically
controlled and which have significant phenotypic plasticity?
as for my references: a wikipedia article with 40+ references
(several peer-reviewed or from academic presses) and a technical
dictionary vs. no references. which is tacky? I'm not asking for a
dissertation from you, nor do I have time to write one on this
topic myself.
answer one question: are there any traits, or is there even a
single trait in humans that could be changed through selective
breeding? if your answer is yes (which it must be), then eugenics
isn't a pseudoscience, even if the goals and methods of some of its
practitioners have been poor science, unethical, or impossible to
achieve. the implication of your assertion is that every incorrect
hypothesis moves the experiment into the realm of a
pseudoscience
|3.1.07 @ 11:54AM|#
If you've spent any time looking through the Dictionary of EES
then you've surely noticed that some of the entries are incomplete
or oversimplified; this shouldn't be at all surprising, given that
they sometimes try to treat very complex subjects with a few lines
of text. I think I've shown pretty clearly with the literature
search (and presumably you could verify this yourself if you were
interested) that the way the word is actually used by people who
are actually in the field - in other words, the technical
definition - is restricted to humans. On a side note, it seems a
bit odd that you're trying to simultaneously defend two sources
with contradictory definitions of the word (or perhaps you haven't
noticed that the wiki page restricts its definition to "improvement
of human hereditary traits").
"are there any traits, or is there even a single trait in humans
that could be changed through selective breeding?"
Of course the answer to that question is yes. The problem with it,
for the last time, is that selective breeding of humans is NOT the
same as eugenics. Eugenics has a more restricted definition, and
specifically applies to traits that could not easily be selected
for/against (for straightforward reasons that were well understood
in the early 20th century), and in some cases which may not even
have a genetic basis. You're certainly free to use whatever
definition of eugenics you're most fond of, but I'm going to go
ahead and stick with the accurate one.
biologist|3.1.07 @ 2:05PM|#
from the Wikipedia article:
"Eugenics has, from the very beginning, meant many different things
to many different people. Historically, the term has referred to
everything from prenatal care for mothers to forced sterilization
and euthanasia. Much debate took place in the past, and takes place
today, as to what exactly counts as eugenics...The term eugenics is
often used to refer to movements and social policies that were
influential during the early 20th century. In a historical and
broader sense, eugenics can also be a study of "improving human
genetic qualities"."
in this latter sense, the Wikipedia definition is a subset of the
ESS dictionary definition, not contradictory. Wikipedia mainly
concentrates on the common use of the word (eugenics as a social
movement), which doesn't encompass all senses of the word, so
effectively, you are picking which sense you prefer. you might be
using the most common definition, but that's not necessarily the
most accurate one, nor the only one. I'm referring to the biology
of eugenics in the broad sense, not the social movement. eugenics
(the biology sense) can form testable hypotheses, and is therefore
not a pseudoscience.
also, I did perform an electronic database search for keyword
"eugenics", which mostly resulted in articles using the term in the
way you advocate - apparently because
1. biologists have abandoned the term because of its unsavory
historical connotations
2. social "scientists" and historians have written a lot about the
eugenics social movement
3. Charles Colson (of Watergate infamy) and others enjoy equating
Darwinian evolution with unethical social movements
so, I'll take my Argumentum ad Verecundiam over your
Argumentum ad Populum. it's been fun
something, but I need to finish my thesis on population genetics
now.
|3.1.07 @ 8:33PM|#
"in this latter sense, the Wikipedia definition is a subset of
the ESS dictionary definition, not contradictory."
Come on now… you're obviously not stupid; you can certainly come up
with something better than this. One definition says the word
eugenics applies to other animals and plants, the other says it
doesn't. If you take any crop plant, any domesticated pet, any food
animal, or anything else besides a human and ask whether selective
breeding/improvement is eugenics, the two definitions will give
opposite answers. They're clearly contradictory. You should keep in
mind for future conversations you have, academic or otherwise, that
people who deny the patently obvious tend to lose some intellectual
credibility.
"I'm referring to the biology of eugenics in the broad
sense..."
And, of course, by "broad" you actually mean "scientifically
non-standard or inaccurate." I don't "advocate" for a particular
definition as being inherently better or worse; I just acknowledge
which one is in standard use in the field.
And you wouldn't be so silly as to mention your academic
credentials "on population genetics" to impress me or anyone else
on an anonymous blog post, would you? It kind of looks that way -
that phrase seems a little too awkward and forced, tacked on there
at the end of your post. If you did, you should also keep in mind
that you may end up demonstrating unequivocally that you have
considerably less education and experience than the people you're
trying to impress. But you're right about one thing - you should
probably be working on your thesis, after you have the last word
here (if you're so inclined).
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245