Slashdot Mirror
The Heretical Freeman Dyson
dublin writes "Big-thinker Freeman Dyson has written a new essay in which he points out the need for heretics in science, and goes on to gore some sacred cows, including global climate change: 'My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated ... There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global ... When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories ... All our fashionable worries and all our prevailing dogmas will probably be obsolete in fifty years. My heresies will probably also be obsolete. It is up to [the people of 2070] to find new heresies to guide our way to a more hopeful future.'"
He spoke out against global warming!
BURN HIM!!!!
also, first
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
We need more people to stand up against the global warming onslaught. On a more amusing note, the people that complain about global warming would be crying if we had an ice age.....
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
...it's not real science, it's just research into existing areas.
Forget the heresey,
Check out SCIFOO 2007 (A Photo Essay by George Dyson) at the bottom of the page.
I wish I were there to see all these great minds together. Am I the only one?
Video Production Support
Hmm, this seems like a rather easy prediction to make: that all the arguments for, and against, the current view on global warming will be obsolete in 50 years.
Unfortunately, the debate on global warming has been so politicized that I can indeed believe that any theories currently present will be obsolete in a small number of years. Has it occured to anyone else that the huge right-vs-left debate over global warming has actually repressed all of the scientific facts on global warming? I'd love to see original scientific research on the question on global warming, but it seems that everyone with an opinion on global warming is merely a pundit for either the right or the left.
Perhaps, somewhat arrogantly, I consider myself an intelligent scientist (though not a climatologist). I would love to read the research on the subject of global warming, minus the political punditry, and make my own decisions on the problem.
He is correct. It is important that people speak against the common wisdom, otherwise we would never learn anything. That being said, 99% of the time when people claim stuff against common sense, they are talking bullshit.
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
This was the man I first thought of when reading the /. summary (I haven't read TFA).
I guess maybe Lomborg has done some good things, started some good things, but all in all he did nothing good for the global warming debate but make it less scientific and more political. Then again he is actually a statistician with a lot of knowledge about economics and little real knowledge about geology etc.
My point is just that people like Lomborg tend to make something that was before something that could be debated scientifically in open forums like these something that starts a flame war almost right away as soon as it is brought up.
I am not sure this makes the science that we really need to be done well any better, what should have been arguments about scientific evidence ends up in economic and political arguments which never really lead to any good.
"They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
The question is, is Dyson being an Einstein, or a Bozo? For my money, on climate change, I'm going with the latter.
are getting warmer."
Doesn't that quote suggest he's just been confused by the term global warming and doesn't understand the basic issue at all? I'm convinced it's because of people like him that the popular term was modified to "Climate Change". It's about the energy the heat adds to the system, not the fact that it gets warm everywhere. It could well get colder in a lot of places, all it does is make things more extreme. Like pushing a swing just that little bit harder, it might go up higher but unless you move it's the back swing that will have you not fathering any children.
RTFA, looks like Thomas Gold was right.
Not surprised though. What I wonder is if the rate of consumption is higher than the rate of production, and even if it is not, whether the consumption is sustainable due to the CO2 and other stuff produced.
How many people here would get on an airplane if only about 90% of the principles behind aerodynamic science were understood? Or if the designers were only 85% sure it would fly?
Not many, huh?
Well, why are you so gung-ho about rewiring the Western world's economy based on degrees of consensus and confidence that aren't even that good?
Carl Sagan was quite the environmentalist himself, but he still believed that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." I've never been a fan of that quote because it implies that scientific scrutiny should be applied only to a degree sanctioned by someone's value judgment. But I think a reasonable rephrasing would be, "Extraordinary demands require extraordinary justification."
Can anyone argue with that?
Turns out we have some bad data.
"NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events."
Ultimately what he attacks is being stuck in an ideology, and that heresies are essential for science. He isn't claiming that his heresies are true - just that scientists are too stuck in an ideology to even give them proper attention.
The Raven
It's a science vs. anti-science issue.
Newsweek has an excellent review of the evolution and funding of the climate change denial movement. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek /
It's fine that Dyson encourages scientific skepticism and debate, but in life, we manage risk by taking actions according to best estimates of that risk. If, according to the latest consensus science, the likelihood of serious consequences for human-modulated climate change is, say, 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 50%, or 70%, our actions should reflect those likelihoods. The answer is not to do nothing until the likelihood is 98%. Policy should be proportional to risk, and there's a reasonable scientific consensus that human behavior is 70% to 80% likely to be part of the changes currently observed, and there's a higher chance that these changes are going to have some costly effects regardless of cause. It likewise seems reasonable to encourage more alternative fuels research.
Burning him will release more greenhouse gases, you insensitive clod!
We don't need to prove global warming beyond reasonable doubt. Rather, we are changing composition of Earth atmosphere to historically unprecedented parameters. Science says that more likely than not we are going to cause undesirable climate change. But even if that turns out to be an error, we are definitely using up a non-renewable resource while subsidizing terrorists. So in any case, we should do the same thing.
The real problem is that huge american companies are NOT willing to find out the truth, whatever it is. Why? Because if it turns out that global warming COULD be caused by them, and that it COULD have negative consequences for the rest of the world, they COULD lose their big buckets o' money.
Remember the case of the girl that wasn't given an MRI scan to see if she *COULD* have cancer, even when she was bleeding and had awful headaches? One month later she was dead. Why? Negligence. The same is happening to the planet. Floods here, floods there, and the people who can make a difference, don't give a damn.
It's completely fine to try out heresies in science. Say there wasn't a big bang. Say black holes don't exist. Say the Earth is flat. Say we have two moons, I couldn't care less! But right now, and specifically with global warming, we're talking about the destiny of the whole planet. The planet needs to be diagnosed, and fast. Is it ok to be an alarmist? To announce doomsday news? To scare everyone?
If it turns out that Global Warming isn't true, that we can pollute the air as much as we want without consequences, I'd be REALLY glad to be wrong! I'd celebrate! You can kill all the global warming theory supporters, including me. Fine by me. But if we're right... what will happen if the US doesn't listen? And we're running out of time. Is the corporations' money worth destroying the Earth? Is it?
In the end, it's all about money. Science isn't relevant, unfortunately.
Cue the so-called "global warming skeptics" complaining that being shown corroborating data and having one's arguments rebutted is the same as being burnt at the stake as a heretic.
Oh, my bad. They were already here. Honestly, am I the only one who gets a little tired of the massive persecution complex of global warming deniers? Jesus, you'd think that being shown the evidence was precisely the same as having bamboo under your fingernails.
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
Once, I was in a meeting with about 20 people, including a VP of manufacturing. I, as a very young and wide-eyed engineer, presented my view of things which was quite equivocal. My stupid boss at the time, I suppose, imagined this would be a good learning experience for me. I guess he was right come to think of it.
At any rate, I was called a "Philadelphia lawyer", an "obstructionist", and "bloody minded" by the VP. What a dick.
My sin was that I applied what I understood about science to an issue that had economic consequences. When money, and other peoples ambitions, are involved, marketing soon follows. And engineers are poorly equipped to deal with marketing type arguments.
So I got eviscerated by arguments that had more to do with bully tactics than knowledge. Would that I could go back to that meeting as the 48 year old me and give that VP what for. He was wrong, and I was right, but he won because he knew rhetoric.
What I should have said to him, all those years ago, was "OK smart guy, if you are so bright, YOU sign the release documents and I'll just go back to my desk".
What someone needs to tell Mr. Dyson, and all the other loud-mouths, is ok smart guys, YOU stake your precious legacies, or whatever it is you value, on the lives of the people that will live 100 years from now.
I know about numerical analysis, I do a lot of it, albeit not in fluids. But I have a feel for how it works. One run, two runs are just for fun, but after 500 or a thousand that show a trend, you have to pay attention. You have to, especially when the underlying physics make sense. CO2 is opague to infra-red.
So ok Mr Feemon Dysoon. Let's put you in suspended animation and bring you back in 100 years and you can explain to the poor slobs why you condemned them to live in a desert. How's that sound, smart guy?
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
I think that he is right. The only way to have meaningful discussion is to consider both sides. I think it is awesome when someone like Freeman Dyson makes this point. I think it is pretty silly when it is Dennis Miller or Sean Hannity. Dyson is making arguments. He is not attacking the people. His main point as I understand it is that the real world is far too messy to be explained by simple, ideal meteorological models. Of course, he's right. This argument applies equally to all science. Even Newton's laws are only true within certain assumptions (the ability to ignore quantum effects and relativistic effects, for example). But this then is the essence of the question. Are the ideal assumptions of the meteorologists right enough to be worth worrying about? I think the next step is for some noted meteorologist to respectfully address Dyson's concerns and put up his/her best answer. This is how science (in the ideal) proceeds. Let's hope that science in the real proceeds approximately close enough for real debate to occur. -Larry
we do not need heresies to solve global warming... we need science and its methods...
And ignore the melting glacier behind him. Do not look at the measurements of sea level and ice caps at the poles. Ignore all those measurements. They mean nothing. It is only the heretic who tells you to ignore your common sense that you must listen to. All those scientists with their electronic instruments and historical charts are of no consequence. Listen to the nay-sayer who speaks the truth because he must be trusted as the only truth just because he speaks differently and just because just because. Any declaration by anybody who claims to know from observation and meticulus detailed record keeping is suspect. We need to put our trust in the nay-sayer who has no obsrvations and no scientific method, but just gut instinct to tell us the truth.
Follow Brian, he has the shoe!
You are accepting the answers realclimate.org provides as absolute truth. Guess what? That's also a politically motivated site. They are not interested in trying to present all the information of GW, they are interested in pushing the case that it is real and humans are causing it. So if you take that as your only information source, yes I'm sure you think it is all settled, there aren't any issues. However not everyone sees it that way. I've done some research and before becoming overwhelmed by all the bad science and bullshit, I came to the conclusion that it is NOT as clear cut as many people want to present. I found an awful lot of data being used incorrectly, a massive amount of using computer models to "prove" things (models don't prove things, they help you figure out what should happen so you can test it for proof), a great deal of appeal to "consensus" and a continual demonizing of anyone who wasn't a believer.
So sorry, but I remain unconvinced and a site like realclimate.org does nothing to change that. What I need is what I consider to be good, unbiased research. So far, I've had real trouble finding it. Things that sounded reasonable in the new bite fall apart when you read the actual journal article and investigate it a bit.
If you've reviewed the data and find it to be clear and convincing, that's great, but don't assume everyone has to agree with you, or that a person who doesn't is an idiot.
1) your quip about "betting their life" on climatologists being wrong is quite bone headed. People bet their lives every day, and on things much more certain. You bet your life every time you get in a car. Guaranteed 50k people will die this year in the US riding in cars. Why don't you stop betting your life on that "sacred" convenience? How many people is climate change going to kill this year? Even if the "worst case" happens how many people is climate change going to kill? What are the chances you are one of those people? Why should I spend my life's savings buying an electric car, putting solar panels on my roof (that I'll have to replace every 20 years), and in general destroying my standard of living to avoid a calamity that NO ONE can even put anything like a percentage on.
2) Why not assume they are right? Because the costs are astronomical! It's not a "sacred" lifestyle, its a lifestyle that has lengthened life expectancy by 30 years in just 100. You go live "sustainably" for a few years in africa, come back and tell me how that was for you. Modern life requires the use of energy. I would be more than happy to have an electric car, to not use fossil fuels, but, if it means that I have to work longer hours, or harder to maintain the same amount of freedom, then no its not worth it. And that is what it means today because it is way more expensive. Now, if you environmentalists would let us build some nuclear power plants, we could probably solve all the problems.
I actually read his article. Quite entertaining and it agrees 100% with my own weird thinking. At the end he implies that he is 82 years old! Geez, I wish I can be that bright and sprightly one day when I get to be 72, nevermind 82.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
At least you do if you are doing real science. Really doing science isn't about running a computer simulation to show something, saying "This proves it," and then shouting down anyone who disagrees with you as an idiot. Real science is in fact bending over backwards to try to find anything you can wrong with your theory and testing it. Because you see we don't prove things true, we show them to be not false. That's not the same thing. Doing an experiment that supports a theory doesn't show the theory is true, it provides evidence it isn't false. Every time you test it again, you are more sure it is true, every time you come up with an alternate hypothesis and falsify that, you are more sure it is true. Once you've done everything you (and others) can think of to try and prove your theory false and failed, then you say its true (though you may be proven wrong later).
Real science, proper science, is going for proof to a very high standard. I'll quote Richard Feynman since he said it very well:
"It's a kind of scientific integrity,
a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of
utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if
you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you
think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about
it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and
things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other
experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can
tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know
anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you
make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to
help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the
information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or
another."
If you want to argue for a much lower standard, ok, but understand that isn't good science, that's pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is where you have some experiments, maybe contrived maybe not, to support your claims and that's all. You don't try to prove them false, in fact you ignore any contrary evidence. Instead you rely heavily on personal testimony and showing how many people agree with you (a large consensus). You don't go for strong evidence, you go for strong persuasion.
You can do that if you like, but please don't confuse it with good science.
Global warming is the liberal version of the war on terror: Something Democrats use to pass legislation and scare people into voting.
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
Scientists haven't been turned into zealots, it's just that they aren't used to such an onslaught of propaganda against them that they've turned into incredulous, frustrated, annoying loud mouths.
Which means we shouldn't listen to them. After all, they want Global Warming just as much as the corporations don't want it, right?
Play Command HQ online
There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global ... When I listen to the public debates about climate change
That's why people stopped calling it "global warming" and started calling it "global climate change", as the former name gave people entirely the wrong impression. The point is that the world is apparently getting warmer globally on average. That does mean that some places will be getting cooler, while others won't be changing...
Well that, and all the stupid "I wouldn't mind a bit of global warming, it's bloody freezing here" jokes people kept making.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
The warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongest where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading. - Freeman Dyson
. html
. htmlo data.html
The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70N. - NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming
I don't know enough about the human involvement part yet to disagree with him (though I've been looking into it, and the research is compelling enough to keep me reading). But I have pored over the numbers on the temperature record, and when he says it is inconclusive, he is mistaken. I think he has not looked at the data very thoroughly, and that this fact is quickly demonstrated by his inaccurate statement that the effect has been greatest in the arctic.
More data here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/mpp/freedata.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pale
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Absolutely certain knowledge does not exist, for all we know, this is all just a dream and the real Earth is spiraling away from the sun. Action can only be be based on what the facts seem to be at any given point in time, and scientists, who seem to have a pretty consistant track record with respect to facts, say that we seem to be experiencing an increase in the average temperature on Earth and this seems to be largely attributable to. If we implement policies to prevent global warming and it turns out we trigger a new ice age instead, then oh well. Life's a bitch that way.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
... working. I for myself hold it with this xkcd comic: http://xkcd.com/164/ I bet it was posted numerous times in this discussion already, but once more can't hurt.
How about we approch things with an open mind. Well? Is that too "out there" for you?
Suppose that a climate catastrophe were to destroy, tomorrow, 90% of the resource inputs—land, minerals, fuels, and so on—that now feed man's economic processes. If in every subsequent year man succeeded in using those natural-resource inputs 5% more efficiently than he did in the preceding year, in only 15 years time he will have returned to his previous level of prosperity, having learned to do ten times as much with an equivalent quantity of resources. In light of the astounding progress in technology that man has made in the past century, it does not strike me as altogether unreasonable to imagine that, in a time of ecological duress, he would be able to do something much like this.
...folks should really read the article. I have always enjoyed reading Freeman Dyson, because he doesn't strongly advocate a point of view - other than thinking a bit, taking a step back, and reconsidering your beliefs; perhaps believing in them more strongly than before, perhaps not. The article is really about the value of heretics, about unconventional thinking, and not allowing your beliefs to run too far ahead of your facts. The brief 'summaries' written here do not do justice to the subtleies of his opinions. As he makes clear, he picks global warming because in the scientific community there is virtually no doubt it is occuring, and thus a good candidate for needing some heretics to keep things fresh and honest. As for his own ego, read the article and see what advice he gave to Crick on becoming a biologist.
Dyson is right in that heretics are needed, and right that biomass needs to be considered in global climate models, but wrong in assuming that only meteorologists produce climate models. Have a look at (eg.) Fatih Evrendilek and Mohan K. Wali, Changing Global Climate: Historical Carbon and Nitrogen Budgets and Projected Responses of Ohios Cropland Ecosystems and the references.
That should read 50 years time. 15 years would suffice to recover from a 50% loss of resources. The point is the same: a one-time change of this kind merely sets back man's economic growth by a relatively small period of time. And economic growth is not identical with quality of life; if climate change means that people will have to trade their two SUVs and a McMansion for, say, apartments in resource-efficient cities, how much will they really have lost? Conversely, it does not seem that a hostile climate will prevent anyone from rising out of absolute poverty, which has more to do with economic freedom and technology than with the availability of copious resources.
It was one data set that contained an error, and a fairly marginal one at that. At the cost of repeating myself, go take the corrected data, plot it, and see that not much has changed. Of course, saying "the hottest year is no longer 1998, it's 1934! Its teh climate illuminati!" makes more of a headline.
You conveniently seem to forget that:
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
"We all know that everyone who doesn't believe as we do is evil and wants to kill babies." ... "Can't we just stick with insulting people etc.."
Unfortunately science has to contend with being performed by humans. So human bias can creep in.
One of the parent posts shows this...
"All scientists by definition are aiming for heretical status every time they write a paper or perform an experiment."
That's the ideal of science, but unfortunately humans rarely live up to ideals.
That statement about "every time they write a paper" etc. also overlooks the pressure on scientists, who's career can be seriously damaged by them speaking out against current accepted ideas in science. This leads to a tendency forcing scientists to, toe the line, so to speak. We are pack animals after all and unfortunately that pack mentality creeps in. (A pack is only a pack when everyone stays in the pack. So packs form with behavioural pressures on the members of the pack, which bias them to staying in a pack). Fear is a good motivator and fear of being thrown out of the pack is something a pack animal will try hard to avoid. (Being thrown out of a pack means you are easy prey). Unfortunately pack behaviour still persists in humans.
We need heretics to stress test every idea not just in science, but also in society. Every idea needs to be continuously stress tested to find faults in it and find holes in it.
The stress testing forms the role of feedback in a system keeping it from going widely out of control. Loose feedback and the system fails by going to an extreme. (The corrupted thinking of the Taliban prove this with the extremes they went to before 911 with how they were silencing anything which could tell them they were wrong. The Nazis also proved this with again silencing anything which could tell them they were wrong. One a religious belief the other a political belief, (like so many other examples from history of extreme beliefs), yet underneath the specifics of the belief, a behaviour which leads to a system failing by going to an extreme). (A system, as in a group of people).
Unfortunately the ones who seek to be the pack leaders want people to stay in their pack. They want people to toe the line. Dissenters will be thrown out of their pack or publicly discredited or even destroyed as a warning to others to toe the line.
This pack behaviour works against science. Scientific progress can only be achieved, if people step outside of the pack. Hence they are identified and labelled as heretics.
What Freeman Dyson is saying about the need for heretics in science makes complete sense.
Our societies need heretics because without them our whole social system is a machine without feedback, so it will go wrong and run to extremes.
The unfortunate thing is that with the ever present pressure from the pack leaders to get people to toe the line, we face a growing danger in the years to come. The Internet provides the pack leaders with an unprecedented level of identifying and controlling dissenters. We need heretics more than ever. As soon as people can no longer speak out against other beliefs, the social system fails by going to extremes and there are no good extremes, as for every winner there are loosers. Create too many loosers and you head towards civil unrest and even wars.
We need heretics more than every to identify and prevent injustice. Yet in a world rightly fearful of terrorists, we have a world running to the other extreme of Big Brother. A world that will not allow heretics. The irony is the terrorists are run by pack leaders who want people to toe their line.
Science is getting caught up in the global battle for power over which beliefs will dominate the planet. The irony is the pack leaders "toe the line" behaviour which results in a social loss of feedback, which occurs in all societies, is ultimately the central cause of the worlds problems. And we have had this problem throughout human h
There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
"I am old enough to remember when everybody railed about global cooling (about 30 years ago)."
And I am old enough to call bull on your pseudo memories.
Is this really the sum total of what "skeptics" bring to the table? Or was this entire post some truly subtle satire which I entirely missed?
Mr. Dyson said the following
We are lucky that we can be heretics today without any danger of being burned at the stake. But unfortunately I am an old heretic. Old heretics do not cut much ice. When you hear an old heretic talking, you can always say, "Too bad he has lost his marbles", and pass on. What the world needs is young heretics. I am hoping that one or two of the people who read this piece may fill that role.
I thougt abount bekoming a heretik myselph but then even being young you can't be a good heretik without a good spell checker.
What you mean that we've had some natural global warming as well as human global warming? That's like totally not fair, I thought this survival of life on Earth was going to be as seen on TV!
For the comment that climate change from humans doesn't compare to a single volcanic eruption, yeah sure I have a book for you, Krakatoa: The Day the World Exploded, 27 August 1883, you're not exactly comparing a dangerous phenomena with a safe phenomena.
If you need text styles to communicate then you don't have a message.
The big problem with climate change is not in the arguments presented or in the science behind it, but in the quality and motives of the people who participate in any public discussion about climate change. Practically, climate change has become a tool used by people with political intents, and, of course, as all political issues it has an economic cause: Rich people want more money and therefore want to be able to release as much CO2 as they want (and they do not care whether this destroys the atmosphere they breathe), while poor people want more money and therefore want to destroy the rich (in order to take their wealth and become rich themselves as well, and of course they also do not care about the atmosphere they breathe), and nowadays they are trying to do so by claiming that releasing CO2 is bad. Furthermore, the people who participate in public discussion about climate change on popular media or venues (eg TV, newspapers, political speeches etc, to distinguish against academic conferences and other non-popular venues) seldom have an understanding of science, or even an interest in it, and sometimes do not even possess a brain or mind capable of logical, thoughtful, critical analysis of the issues involved in climate change. It is a serious field that has now been touched by a silly mass of fools with inferior motives, and the result is what you see on your TV or read in popular newspapers. It becomes pretty disgusting when scientific theories or even a small set of scientific data are being used by the masses for purposes other than expanding our knowledge of the cosmos; it really becomes silly and makes you wonder why you have to share the planet with people of so great variance in quality. Perhaps because heretics are needed in all properties and measures for evolution, adaptation, and survival in a complex world.
The whole Galileo vs. Copernicus fiasco is a great illustration of what Dyson is talking about.
"Scientists have turned into theoretical zealots".
Not proper scientists like Dyson. It is the task of scientists to find out the truth about how the world works, as far and as fast as they can. Politicians, business leaders, and others may then act on the scientists' discoveries.
If the scientists start trying to do it all, they will undermine the impartiality of their own work, on which everything else rests.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
> All our fashionable worries and all our prevailing dogmas will probably be obsolete
> in fifty years. My heresies will probably also be obsolete. It is up to [the people of
> 2070] to find new heresies to guide our way to a more hopeful future.'
In the meantime let's grow fat and watch tv.
There are FAR too many folks on the positive side saying that GW is occurring. I would like to see more of the negative folks be funded, but ALL of their data needs to be published. The negatives are more likely to think through ways that will disprove GW. The problem has been that the only good negative GWs have been trying to disprove it, and are failing miserably. While I am not a climatologist and do not stay up on the low-level science papers, I have seen enough to know that ALL have loads of questions about the positive, but not a one has any credible evidence to say that GW is not occurring. And the worse part is the so far, no paper from the negative has stood up to review. In nearly all cases, they are shown to have sloppy science. Some are BLATENTLY sloppy, but are obviously geared for fox news watchers and politicians, neither of which are known as great thinkers.
So yeah, I agree with Freeman, but not really you.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
And I am old enough to call bull on your pseudo memories.
And the second paragraph of that says he's right. If "everybody" is taken figuratively, it refers to the "popular press," not scientific literature that is read by almost no one.
The first Earth Day was a warning that we were on the brink of a new ice age. Everyone he heard from, and everyone most people heard from, believed that then.
Here's your sig.
I believe parent gives very clear arguments against several points made in "The Great Global Warming Swindle". For what it's worth, I've seen neither the Swindle nor An Inconvenient Truth myself; from what I've heard, they both feature too much bad science to my taste. I prefer to consult the references myself. At some point, I may watch the documentaries; if I do, I'll probably watch both of them.
Haven't read the article (yet!) but most of the discussion here seems to be another airing of opinions on climate change, rather than anything about the man or the article itself. I would have thought more people would be interested in the nerd angle. This is the man who gave sci-fi the awesome Dyson Sphere to play with, after all.
Nope, I don't think you missed anything. I come from a more philosophical background and the skeptics have had their day there too. At first they preformed a valuable function, they raised the burden of proof. But after a while they just ran amok and came darn close to destroying the whole philosophical movement. The problem with the skeptics was, as you so rightly suggest, that they generally brought nothing new to the table, instead they began insisting on a burden of proof so high that it literally became impossible satisfy them.
Take for example straight deductive logic:
PLATO:
All men are mortal.
Jim is a man.
Therefore, Jim is a mortal.
SKEPTIC:
Why should I believe that all men are mortal and why should I believe that Jim is really a man?
PLATO:
(Smacks head on table)
SKEPTIC:
(Basks in perceived self importance; allows ego to swell.)
As my favorite professor use to say: "If you have nothing relevant to contribute, become a skeptic."
S.
Wow, nice strawman of how skeptics are. Really easy to argue against that. I'm sure your favorite professor must be proud.
As one of my favorite movie writers wrote: Comicus: "Standup Philosopher! I coalesce the vapor of human experience into a viable and logical comprehension." Clerk: "Oh - a Bullshit Artist!"
Actually you don't need a computer model. Just work for a big corporation (instead of say, the eden-like Institute for Advanced Studies for most of your life), know that large corporations are who are going to be managing that land, and the answer is clear. We're gonna *rape* it. Cause next year's topsoil doesn't effect this quarter's profits so it's not material.
You know, it's no wonder some of us find it hard to take the global warming movement seriously, and why some have started to label it a conspiracy to pretty much destroy western industrial civilization and bring us all back to the stone age.
I'm sorry, but you're an idiot. I work for a corporation that is today reaping the benefits of decisions made in the 1960s. That just embarked on a project which will not be complete for over 20 years - and it won't even show a dime of profit for at least 10. In fact, the entire oil industry works on these sorts of time scales - and imagine that, they're the ones most directly contributing to global warming. In short, you haven't a hot fucking clue what you're talking about.
The lunatic ravings of "OMG BIG CORPS RAPE TEH PLANET!!!!" don't exactly make it easy to read anything else in your post. All you're doing is making the conspiracy theorists RIGHT.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
S.
1) Proof we're making massive CO2 emissions
2) Lab experiments showing CO2 causes greenhouse effect
3) Proof that the ice caps are melting
No, there's no particularly accurate model of the entire planet's ecosystem, but the current discussion goes kinda like this car analogy:
"I'm going to go through that curve in 200MPH"
"If you do that you'll crash and die"
"Oh really, what is going to happen? Where and how in the curve will it happen, will I hit a tree, slide off the road, do a flip?"
"Well, I can't exactly answer that. It'll depend on the surface, temperature, humidity, your driving, which tire lets go and so on."
"In other words you've got any idea whether I'll crash or not."
"I do have friction experiments in the lab that show you won't be able to stay on the road."
"You just told me there's no model for what'll happen in real life, I'm doing it."
"..."
You have an estbalished causation in the lab:
CO2 emissions => greenhouse effect
You have an observed corrolation in the real world:
CO2 emissions <=> greenhouse effect
No, the real world is not a controlled scientific experiment. But the hypothesis that our emissions are being offset by an unknown factor AND at the same time there's a natural increase in global warming which just happens to coincide is really wishful thinking. Are you willing to risk the future of this planet on this just being natural variation and a "magical" factor negating our pollution?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I imagine that most of the earth's arable land is either (a) not used for farming; or (b) used rather inefficiently. 10% of today's arable land might be more than adequate if the latest agricultural technologies were universally introduced. (Our ability to make fertilizer doesn't seem to depend on the climate in any way.) Or perhaps high-density hydroponic farming will become more economical than using precious land. I really don't know.
In reality, anyway, climate catastrophes don't happen overnight, so there would be ample time for economies to adapt themselves to declining resource availability. There's every reason to believe that civilization will continue to thrive in a more hostile climate (short of the atmosphere suddenly turning poisonious or something).
If we go to Iraq, and try to fight terrorism there so we don't fight it in the US; well if we screw it up even worse, then oh well, life's a bitch that way.
Look, the world is changing, just as it has always been changing. If our technology is causing this change to increase, we should think about it. But do not be so foolish as to think that we should use technology to change the changing!
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
The "facts" are not as clear cut as you would like them to be. Of course it's easy if you only listen to what you WANT to hear.
/. post? You can negate other's arguments forever, alleging conspiracy theories and a lack of 'proof'. I also can't 'prove' gravity, evolution, that the earth isn't flat, or that the moon landing wasn't faked on a soundstage in a /. post. In fact, few people in the world can do that in any medium, without writing a book. So what does your argument mean?
These arguments are rhetorical nonsense. You're saying you won't believe it unless someone can lay out the complete argument in a way you can understand, in a
But meanwhile, no matter what argument you make, GW is happening and you will suffer the consequences. It's not a political issue that can be changed with arguments, like 'should we have universal health care', it's a physical fact, like gravity, drought, and floods. You can argue all you want against gravity, you can wait for 'proof', but it won't help you much.
I say the earth is warming; you say it's staying the same. The overwhelming evidence is on my side. Where is your 'proof' for your side, that the temperature is staying the same?
We do need heretics in science.
Even though heretics usually turn out to be wrong. But they do raise important questions, and Dyson does that.
I predict that Dyson's essay will be broadly acclaimed by global warming critics, even though what he said actually gives very little support to their critique of global warming.
He accepts that warming is occurring and that CO2 is a contributing factor. He accepts that climate is changing. Not what the anti-global warming guys are pushing
His strongest argument is that perhaps the biology will adapt to the increased CO2, or perhaps we can make it adapt.
He is correct that we really don't know the biological consequences of these changes. Biology is very complicated and nonlinear, much more so than atmospheric physics, and we cannot know how the biology will react to an increase in CO2 coupled with widespread increases in local temperature (which Dyson doesn't like to call "global warming").
Basically, he is saying, "Let's roll the dice and see what happens! Maybe it will all work out because the biology will compensate. Maybe we will find a biological fix."
I think that Dyson is is the kind of scientist who is simply unable to pass up such an interesting experiment. If we don't let CO2 increase, we will never really know what might have happened. Maybe it will all work out sort of OK. Perhaps global warming will turn out to be a catastrophe, but we'll learn something in the process.
From the point of view of people who live in the Sahara, for example, the prospect of rolling the climate dice does not look so bad. Their climate cannot get much worse, and maybe, as Dyson speculates, we might flip over into a "wet Sahara" global climate. On the other hand, countries that already have temperate climates with reasonable amounts of rainfall and weather that is not too violent--the US, for example--should think long and hard about rolling the climate dice.
Freeman is suggesting that they're being politicians, not scientists. Thus, as a scientist himself, he has the authority to criticize them.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
You so didn't understand the least thing he said. His point is that whenever you see universal agreement among scientists, you're seeing a problem which is not well understood, and which needs more study. Quite frankly, we're all dumber than Freeman (I've sat across the dinner table from him). Not paying close attention to him is only the first mistake you'll make.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I don't believe in all of this global warming stuff. I have heard both sides of the story and have concluded that no one knows anything, especially the non-scientific community who tend to be ignorant and don't do any research themselves. If anyone remembers the late 70's, scientists were predicting that an ice-age was going to happen within 20 - 50 years. Well, it's been more than 20 years and nothing has happened. According to this wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age, we could be at the end of the little ice age.
One other thing to note is that we don't have any accurate weather data going back thousands of years. Everything is hear-say and pure speculation before the 19th century. So, how can we make any conclusions about our future climate if there isn't any hard evidence to go by? We can only speculate as to what is going to happen in the future based on data that is too "new" (within the last 2,000+ years as opposed to the last 1,000,000 years). I guess we can look at sediment and arctic ice layers, but again, most of the evidence are speculations.
"Happily lived Mankind in the peaceful Valley of Ignorance." -- Hendrik Willem Van Loon
All our fashionable worries and all our prevailing dogmas will probably be obsolete in fifty years.
Oh, indeed. Because by then, if we don't figure out some way to stop using gasoline, we'll have none anyway. I'm sure that will be more at the forefront of our worries and prevailing dogmas than global warming.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
In one hundred years, nuclear-fusion reactors will not merely be practical, but obsolete. Instead they'll be vibrating quarks to produce energy, or doing something equally alien to our primitive scientific knowledge. It's also quite likely that the climate will by then be utterly and effortlessly under man's control. I see little evidence that the rate of scientific and technological advance has slowed, or that the past few centuries have been some kind of anomaly and nothing but the precursor to a new dark age.
Sorry, but please apply what has happened in Zimbabwe to your Africa model and see if it still holds true.
Sie ist tunbar!
Our ability to make fertilizer (not to mention transporting said fertilizer) is at least partially dependent upon the supply of oil.
Dyson also believes quantum effects are involved in consciousness and might resolve the freewill-determinism debate. (To my mind, this makes him not credible.)
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
Don't you guys have anything better to do?
seriously, now... arguing here on slashdot will not change anything, whether there is GW or not.
Think about this: Axe and Dove are actually the same company. Vincent L.B.
Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin ... all were considered heretics by institutions of mythology, accepted science dogma, and/or governments. So, Mr. Dyson may be saying that intelligence, innovation, and creativity while aggressively seeking the unknown is always in fact considered "Heretical" and potentially lethal to the heretic. For all heretics and adelophobics (irrational fear of the unknown) the threat is palpable, and you can only follow one path at a time. IOW: Heretics are always heroes of humanity, some are not recognized until sometime after their death.
... are intentionally misleading when there is a real threat to ideals, family, and friends.
Yes, a heretic can be wrong, but if they taste a serious threat, then I will consider them a hero.
NOTE: Heretics may be delusional, but they will never intentionally mislead anyone. To be a heretic you must be a true believer a/o seeker of truth.
Only politicians, televangelist, criminals
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Global warming sceptics are incredibly dangerous and destructive, but not because they don't believe the science.
They're dangerous because they encourage the people who are irreversibly damaging the planet (at least that much isn't disputed) to avoid changing anything about the way they live, and to persevere in their unsustainable, wasteful, selfish, amoral existences with the outrageous conviction that THEY are victims of an irrational cabal of liberal/environmental/terrorist operatives (insert label here).
So thanks for freaking nothing, Dyson, and for missing the point and helping make sure the First World morons who are suffocating everyone else need not examine their own lifestyles or consciences. How un-visionary.
PS. It's not really about global warming. It's about good and evil. It's about thoughtlessness and caring. It's about how you treat the only legacy humanity has (a disappearing one). It's about betraying your children, and their children, unto infinity.
you had me at #!
I so do understand the point about the need for "heresy" and the suspiciousness of "universal agreement" amongst scientist. And I fully agree with it. Which is why I didn't argue with it.
:j
The only thing I am arguing with is part of Dyson's essay, the part where he states his belief that "the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated". Just because the mainstream dogma about how global warming works and what our role in it is is probably wrong, doesn't mean that the environment isn't being dangerously destabilized by humans. In my post I wasn't trying to provide evidence for that either way, but I was trying to dispell Dyson's IMHO rather shallow argument as to why "the warming is not global".
And don't tell me Dyson's argument cannot possibly be shallow because he's smarter than all of us... that's precisely the kind of thinking that leads to the dogma Dyson speaking out against.
Absolutely he has a right to call out scientists with a political agenda. As do all of us. But as a scientist, he has the responsibility to support his claims with evidence. Heck, he might even try applying some scientific method to his counterclaims, instead of just spewing at the mouth about a field which he thinks he understands because of his knowledge of physics. I don't see biologists irresponsibly jumping all over particle physics.
Governments issue carbon allotments, which can be bought or bid on for cash. The total value of all a country's allotments equal what they agreed to under Kyoto.
If you don't sign on to Kyoto, you don't get any allotments. Thus your domestic economy must buy them from other countries, or your customers/clients will be obligated to buy them for you and pass the cost on.
Libertarians are, by definition, either dim-witted or immature. The vast majority of them are under 15 years old and living with their parents.
TFA wasn't really about global warming.
There's a difference between The scientific consensus, and science in general. There's nothing wrong with coming up with "heretical" hypotheses, and Dyson is quite right that it's necessary to the process. The problem only comes when the unproven or even uninvestigated hypotheses are spouted as truth.
The scientific consensus is that global warming is occurring, and it's most likely due to human factors. It's great to have people challenging this and looking for alternate explanations of the available data, and that's vital to the scientific process. Just don't take them as anything but wild ideas under investigation.
Scientists the world over agree... there is a high likelihood that a rogue comet with obliterate life on Earth on one of it's next two passes by the planet (which occur every 25 years).
It could take 10 years or more to develop a defensive weapon to destroy it.
Shall we build the weapon? Or maybe we should see if we can poke any flaws into the theories, despite the enormous scientific consensus. You know what, let's wait a few years and see if we can get a better handle on this thing.
He fails to distinguish science from communications.
He does it throughout the essay. He is absolutely right that we need heretics in science. But the fact is that he is not in science. In this essay he is a heretic outside of science, which means that he can serve little good other than increasing public confusion. I recognize and appreciate his contribution to science in the past, and I'm sure he thinks he is doing good by being a gadfly. But he makes a grievous error in trying to expound his oversimplified pet theory as an example of good heresy. It's not, because it is not rigorous.
Consider his example of Tommy Gold. Gold published a paper in which he explained a theory of how the ear works. Dyson focuses on how the theory was eventually proven right, but the important aspect of it is that Gold published an academic paper with a provable (or disprovable) hypothesis. Dyson's essay here does not come close to satisfying the same level of utility.
He says: "When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories." Yet he utterly fails to see that these problems that so impress him could just as easily be ascribed to the public nature of the communications, as to the science they attempt to describe. You cannot criticize science through the filter of public communications; it is impossible to separate the science from the communications. Only through rigorous work in the field can you provide substantive criticism of scientific theory. There is a reason academic journals insist on peer review.
He says: "The science is inextricably mixed up with politics." Yet he fails to see his own role in increasing this problem, by providing untested, unproven fodder for the politics, without benefit of the scientific process to determine its utility. Over the long term, science cannot be politicized--even Lysenkoism was eventually dethroned, despite the full political support of one of the globe's great superpowers. But over the short term it can be obfuscated and politicized. As someone who understands science, Dyson could better serve the gadfly's role by finding good scientific research that challenges the conventional wisdom, rather than trying to invent it. He would be better off finding the next Tommy Gold, rather than half-heartedly trying to be the next Tommy Gold.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Freeman Dyson said this in 2005. If Slashdot is going to post a daily piece of anti-global warming propaganda each day, couldn't they at least pick a current piece?
The ultimate heresy.
At least the way I do it.
Freeman says the US will not be top dog by the end of this century. He's got that right. What he's got wrong is that ANY nation will be top dog by the end of this century.
As Jack Nicholson said in "The Departed", "You all are [on your way out]. Act accordingly."
Have a nice day.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
*Where* CO2 is emitted?
I do not have to bring anything to the table, since I did not make any assertions of truth. If you think that strawmen and hasty generalizations provide a sound footing for your argument, then perhaps more education is needed. The next time you make an assertion of truth, be prepared to back it up. Using logical fallacies to "prove your point" doesn't do very much for you. It hard to bring to have any type constructive discussion with such a poor argument.
On second thought, I did do something constructive. I pointed out for the readers the strawman in your arguement. This is also of benefit to you, as you now can either reconstruct your argument soundly, or abandon it.
"n short, if you don't trust the computer models which nobody sees as perfect, don't bury your head in the sand."
I HAVE. I HAVE done my own investigation and I remain unconvinced.
However for some reason that just isn't acceptable to GW advocates, hence Dyson's article, hence my post. You are treating it like a religion. This is the same shit I hear from Christians "If you'd just READ the bible and actually open your heart and mind to it, you'd find it is true." Well no, in fact, I have read it, I don't find it to be true.
Same deal with GW. I have not been able to find what I consider good evidence that:
1) There is a massive climate shift that is happening.
2) That humans are the cause.
3) That is will be a bad thing for humanity.
You won't find me arguing climate is changing, but that is all climate EVER does. Ever since we've been keeping records, and forever as best as we can tell from analysis of things in the past, the climate has been in a state of flux. Day by day, month by month, year by year, it always changes. So saying "Oh my god it's CHAINGING!" does nothing to get my attention. What you are doing with those articles there is a scare tactic, trying to scare me in to believing. This is the same shit as Christians and hell "If you don't believe, you go and burn here forever!"
So look, I'm not trying to change your mind. If you've reviewed the evidence and decided it is compelling, great. However you need to understand that it is possible for people to come to a different conclusion. You also need to understand that if you respond to that by shouting them down and dismissing anything they have to say, you are acting like a religious fanatic, not a scientist.
Science is all about questioning the established knowledge, and no theory is beyond being proven wrong (in fact, if a theory can't be falsified, then it isn't a scientific theory). If you can't accept that, then the problem is with you.
Sorry, but there is no strawmen to be found. Slow down and re-read my posts and I hope you find that I provided a easy-to-understand caricature of one type of skeptic, the destructive skeptic. This is the individual who will argue for no good reason, and will simply deny any assertion made because they can. Yes, they're out there...
This is opposed to the more constructive kind of skepticism that fulfills the valuable role of ensuring that evidence for an assertion is reasonably there. When such a burden of proof is met, this skeptic allows him or herself to be convinced.
Now for your homework: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
S.
Look, the guy is 80+ years, he's been through a lot and knows a lot. More than most of us.
Do ya believe he may be just more than a critical thinker? Maybe he has a way of looking at things which might be just a bit more valuable than those with less insight?
Respect your elders, it's later than you think.
Now try this:
What motive would anyone have for trying to convince you that climate change is false, or not a problem? Is there some massive influential industry that would see its profits hurt by effort to reduce CO2 emissions? Are oilmen trying to sell you something? What happens if we follow their advice and they turn out to be wrong?
You say you've "done your own investigation," but unless you're a climatologist yourself any investigation you're realistically capable of is limited in scope. You say you've read all the evidence, but I'm pretty sure you haven't, unless that's all you've been doing for most of your adult life. The degree of scientific knowledge the human race has achieved outstripped the capacity of any one individual to completely understand long ago. Yes, this is an Appeal to Authority, but this is the real world here, not an afterschool debate team. We appeal to authority all the time. Every time you get on a plane, you trust that the engineers and pilots and mechanics and air traffic controllers all know what they're doing. You can't personally check every aspect of their work. You trust surgeons to operate on you. You trust structural engineers to build bridges and buildings. You trust physicists to, I don't know, not destroy the fabric of space-time. (Why aren't you a physics skeptic? They can't even show you a sample of the dark matter that they claim a quarter of the universe is made of!) Now, maybe one of those fields does happen to be your area of expertise, but unless your name is Buckaroo Banzai it's just one. This trust occurs even among scientists -- but it's not blind faith, it's confidence in the problem-solving and self-correcting capacities of the scientific method. What do you suppose the purpose of peer review is?
It's unfortunate, but nobody has time to learn everything. If 95% of the scientists who devote their lives to studying a particular complex discipline come to agree with each other, sure, there's a chance they're all wrong, but there's a much greater chance that they're right. And if they're wrong, at least we'll have erred on the side of caution. It's a hell of a lot harder to take stuff out of the atmosphere than to put stuff into it.
Is that national carbon trading systems are asinine and pointless.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Actually, even that page supports the claim -- it was widely believed that there was a coming ice-age, people reported on it, sci fi writers talked about it, and so on.
It wasn't the same as what we have now, certainly; there was less consistency in beliefs, and a lot less detailed evidence. But then, that's true for lots of things that have changed one or two times in my lifetime.
As an argument that there's no global warming, it's inept. As an argument that people ought to be a little less hasty to take actions based on popular news reporting about science, it's spot on. As a simple statement of fact, it's indubitably correct.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
National carbon trading systems won't reduce carbon output. They'll just move it.
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/CO2_Science_re l/
Your list like many list only one side of the data. None of the links are to any data supporting influences other than human caused theories. Is there any way humans and their activity is causing global climate change on Mars also? How much of our change is from humans and how much is from the Sun?
Here on Slashdot with the scientific community, I was hoping for a full data set instead of lists of polarized data sets.
Be fair, don't omit data that does not support your theory. It is part of the equasion and part of the overall picture. Don't leave relevant data out.
The truth shall set you free!
All national carbon trading systems, or just the ones you've decided to discuss? I might as well then just start saying that international carbon trading systems just move the carbon output around too. It's all a bunch of crap, we're doomed, we should give up now.
It's tough shit, but it will be unlikely for the Americans to ever submit to any significant international oversight. That alone means that international carbon trading systems are a failure, and it's time for you to latch on to a new idea. The politics of an elegant solution don't fit the politics of reality. What is your Plan B?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Just because you disagree with the majority opinion doesn't mean you're right.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
My intent on posting such admittedly one-sided information was to point out there there were some very observable climate changes occurring right now which one does not need a degree in science or statistics to understand. The particular examples I have picked (especially those concerning the glaciers and North Pole) were intended to present scenarios outside of human experience: sea captains have never been able to navigate a northwest passage in recorded human history and many have died trying. Glacial creep is unbelievably easy to both measure (by experts) and observe by novices. Some of the glaciers in the Alps have been portrayed in landscapes for the last couple of centuries and so comparisons between then and now are possible. When one also analyzes the geological record, it's clear that such glacial recessions in these areas haven't happened for thousands of years. Critics of climate change that have posted here have either not acknowledged such obvious examples, or have stated that solar cycles or the precession of the Earth explain this stuff (without offering any data). My critiques of the solar cycles or precession explanations are that they are built into the models that are so soundly criticized by opponents of climate change: one one hand the opponents hate the models, and on the other hand they use them when their purposes are suited.
The true list of both sides of data is at realclimate. There they fairly discuss both sides of the data (for example the fact that there have been some *gains* in glaciation in Greenland and elsewhere) - and then they put it in the context of ALL of the data. It turns out that such gains are the exception rather than the rule. Unfortunately, the site realclimate.org has been designated here as a left-wing conspiracy so I have tried to avoid linking to it even though it really is a data clearing-house.
All of us who have been presenting evidence of any sort have been soundly criticized as being zealots by folks who have stated that graphs are just a bunch of meaningless numbers and the like. In short the critics of climate change seem to me to be intentionally vague or fond of citing outdated data (IPCC 1) vs (IPCC 4). A number of sites have old links to early IPCC reports that do not include some of the fluid dynamics that are being observed in the Antarctic ice sheets (melting begets more melting in a very non-linear way), sea level rise, and new estimates of carbon emissions.
I myself (as someone with an M.A. from the Center for Space Physics at BU) have revised my opinion of global warming quite a lot since the early 1990s - but only by keeping up with what is happening.
The same is true for so-called scientific journals.
Americans can be made to participate in an international carbon trading scheme by including it as a tariff on goods they buy or sell. If they refuse to buy the credits themselves, obligate anyone they do business with to buy them on their behalf, and pass the cost along.
His reputation precedes you.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
That seems to be what some people think. I'll give you a clue: it's the same people who use phrases such as "Church of Global Warming".
Do you actually believe that the newly discovered ocean current will be your savior? They were already aware that something was responsible for transference between these systems, and this supports that it. It doesn't contradict anything. It does help them improve their models so they can make even more exact predictions.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I wasn't trying to convince you, as I suspected you'd already seen the evidence and had disregarded what didn't fit into your worldview — much like you tried to deny the fact that it was the global warming deniers who started with the personal attacks on this thread.
What, exactly, do you doubt? I know you've been around enough to see quite a bit of evidence, but I'll humor you. Tell me what you doubt, and I'll provide the evidence.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?