Global cooling

[Ear]

Now I can't say whether it is true or not, and I'm not quite ready to pay for a copy of the paper, but it does show there is disagreement as to whether and how much humans impact global warming.

As I mentioned before, I never asserted or implied that there was not a controversy on that point.  The scientific community does not agree, but if you read the literature you'll find that nobody states it as a certainty either way.

As reasonable people, however, we MUST admit the possibility that the warming is caused by human activity, and continue to investigate that possibility.  In the process, we must resist the temptation to accept or reject either the idea that global warming is caused by humans, or the idea that it is not, simply based on propaganda either way created by people with a political agenda... because politics has NO BEARING on the scientific facts of the matter.

The vehemence with which so many people deny the possibility of global warming being human-caused is usually rooted in a desire to thwart people using the opposite view for their own vile purposes... a movement towards world government being the most oft-cited of those purposes.  As reasonable people -- as REALISTIC people -- who do not approve of bigger government on general principle, we have to think about ways to fix the problem that do not involve a bigger government if, in fact, compelling evidence surfaces to show that the problem is indeed caused by humans.  Denying what may be a rock-solid fact in order to serve our good and proper political agenda is still serving a political agenda; it is propagandizing against ourselves, and I for one find that unworthy of the Libertarian ideal, and scientifically unacceptable.

[Fluff and Stuff]

"...I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio.

National Public Radio is the popular media, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.  You've just proved my point that the popular media is rife with propaganda.  Why would you believe it either way?  Are you saying that just because you can point to popular media propaganda that is counter to what you want to believe, there must not be any propaganda promoting what you do believe?

A quick point.  The NPR is an arm of the government.  For example, in Wyoming, it is founded by the government (at least partly), produced at the government university (UW) by government workers, and regulated and controlled by government laws and government workers.

[error]

In other words, science shouldn't be politicized? I would wholeheartedly agree with that. Unfortunately, it seems that it has been.

We could probably use a climate scientist who is not only published in those peer-reviewed journals but is also a libertarian. And so it's a very good thing that we actually have one.

Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and professor of natural resources at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and an author of the 2003 climate science "Paper of the Year" selected by the Association of American Geographers. His research has been published in major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science. He received his Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979. His most recent book is Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.

[KBCraig]

In sum:

Scientists in Group A say that the earth is warming, and that it's due to mankind's influence on the environment, and defines that as "global warming".

Scientists in Group B say that the earth is warming as part of a long-term periodic cycle, and mankind might have some effect, but there are many variables that mankind cannot control.

Group A says, "Scientists overwhelmingly believe Global Warming is a fact (as defined by us, meaning it's all man's fault), as you can see by Group B's statement."

Group B says, "Wait a minute, that's not what we said!"

Mainstream media rushes to Group A for interviews and comments.

Meanwhile, activists and their media allies ignore the actual climatological history, and the fact that Earth was been both far warmer and far cooler, before mankind had even existed, much less discovered fire.

Kevin

[error]

No, group A learned its lesson when it got burned on the global cooling thing, so now it's using "climate change," a term which nobody can dispute because the climate is always changing!

It's when they, in cooperation with the mostly socialist-leaning media, try to paint climate change itself as something inherently bad, and then that we must all be enslaved in order to "control" the climate, that we run into a problem.

And, frankly, I wouldn't mind a little global warming. It's COLD! :eastsnow:

[Pat McCotter]

More CO2. Warmer weather. More liquid water to evaporate from oceans and precipitate on land.

Sounds like we are going to have bumper crops in the next couple decades.

[error]

Hahaha. Support global warming to feed the starving children!

[Ear]

A quick point.  The NPR is an arm of the government.  For example, in Wyoming, it is founded by the government (at least partly), produced at the government university (UW) by government workers, and regulated and controlled by government laws and government workers.

Whatever NPR is, it ISN'T a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

[Ear]

In other words, science shouldn't be politicized? I would wholeheartedly agree with that. Unfortunately, it seems that it has been.

We could probably use a climate scientist who is not only published in those peer-reviewed journals but is also a libertarian. And so it's a very good thing that we actually have one.

Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and professor of natural resources at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and an author of the 2003 climate science "Paper of the Year" selected by the Association of American Geographers. His research has been published in major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science. He received his Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979. His most recent book is Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.

Books are part and parcel with the popular media, and are not peer-reviewed scientific journals.  In the case of someone publishing in both, it is necessary to compare the two very stringently to see if they are saying the same things in both places... and it is also necessary to read the rebuttals published in the scientific journals.  Scientists publish for peer review in order to advance science and gain a reputation for themselves as good scientists who do good work; they publish books to make money and gain a reputation for being experts who know better than the rest of us.

[Ear]

In sum:

Scientists in Group A say that the earth is warming, and that it's due to mankind's influence on the environment, and defines that as "global warming".

Scientists in Group B say that the earth is warming as part of a long-term periodic cycle, and mankind might have some effect, but there are many variables that mankind cannot control.

Group A says, "Scientists overwhelmingly believe Global Warming is a fact (as defined by us, meaning it's all man's fault), as you can see by Group B's statement."

Group B says, "Wait a minute, that's not what we said!"

Mainstream media rushes to Group A for interviews and comments.

Meanwhile, activists and their media allies ignore the actual climatological history, and the fact that Earth was been both far warmer and far cooler, before mankind had even existed, much less discovered fire.

This is certainly the impression a thinking person gets when reading only the (politicized, propagandized) popular media, although I disagree with the part about mainstream media rushing to Group A... they rush to both groups for interviews and comments about equally.  In any case, it isn't what's actually happening in the scientific community.  Among scientists, it's more like this:

Group A says that carbon levels in the atmosphere are increasing far beyond what has been seen in the geophysical records since before Mankind's rise to the top of the food chain, that the average global temperature follows the same path as the levels of carbon in the atmosphere, that the Greenland and Antarctic ice shelves are melting very quickly as a result, and that sea levels will be rising significantly because of that, and because of thermal expansion of the water in the world's oceans.  Group A does not know for sure what role human activity plays in this, and isn't sure how slow or fast the rise in sea levels will be, but as more data is gathered it increasingly looks like human activity probably plays a major role and that a significant rise in sea levels will probably happen within our children's lifetimes if not sooner.

There is no Group B.  All the popular media items -- books, magazine and newspaper articles, talk radio interviews, web sites, etc. -- that say there's a major controversy or split going on in the scientific community are examples of either alarmist bullshit, or corporatist bullshit, or easily debunkable pseudoscience by self-aggrandizers and kooks like Christopher Monckton.

If you aren't reading the scientific literature and ignoring the popular media on this issue (even when the articles are written by the same people), then you're being propagandized and your opinion is worse than worthless.  That propaganda cuts both ways.  As activists, it is incumbent upon us to ignore all propaganda that can be identified as such, and make our decisions based on facts alone, without spin or slant or bias.  We have to discipline ourselves and become political scientists, not content ourselves with being the intellectual chattel of push-me-pull-you pundits and politicians who create the illusion of controversy where none exists, and the illusion of unanimity where there is controversy.

[KurtDaBear]

Whatever NPR is, it ISN'T a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Enough with the peer-reviews scientific journals already!

Basically peer review is aimed at keeping young minds with new theories from upsetting the apple carts of the tenured profs and scientists who have invested decades of their lives in the current orthodoxy and whose reputations and livelihoods are based on status quo.  Scratch the surface of the average university science dept. and you find as much orthodoxy and mumbo-jumbo as in the religion dept.  

Fact is that several univerisities, including the University of Va. and the University of Rochester in the U.S. and one Canadian university have done studies showing that the temperature deviations on which global warming models are based dissipated completely at few thousand feet above, and a couple miles outside of, our larger cities.

Also, you may recall that, when challenged on their computer model a few years ago, global warming advocates quickly did a back-and-fill operation to admit that they did need to "refine" some of bases for their calculations and that their model is a work in progress but that they stood by their overall conclusions (Our postulates are wrong, but our results are still right?).

Finally, the number of scientists opposed to the current craze for human-caused global warming is about equal to those who support it in terms of both numbers and prestige, as measured by awards, etc.

[Ear]

Enough with the peer-reviews scientific journals already!

No, it's important.  It's the crux of the matter, in fact... because it's the difference between statements that are actually verifiable and subject to strict intellectual rigor backed up by hard data and correctly-done calculations, and glib bullshit that can be tossed off without any real science behind it and without fear of any nay-saying.

Basically peer review is aimed at keeping young minds with new theories from upsetting the apple carts of the tenured profs and scientists who have invested decades of their lives in the current orthodoxy and whose reputations and livelihoods are based on status quo.

That's absolutely bullshit.  Peer review isn't 'aimed' at anything beyond checking data and conclusions for verifiability.  When possible, this is done by testing the reproducibility of an experiment, which is why Pons and Fleischmann with their tabletop cold fusion were discredited: their experiment could not be reproduced.  Your theory about tenured profs oppressing students absolutely ignores the very definition of the word 'peer', and your implied assertion that scientific work only occurs in universities is ridiculous.

Scratch the surface of the average university science dept. and you find as much orthodoxy and mumbo-jumbo as in the religion dept.

Fact is that several univerisities, including the University of Va. and the University of Rochester in the U.S. and one Canadian university have done studies showing that the temperature deviations on which global warming models are based dissipated completely at few thousand feet above, and a couple miles outside of, our larger cities.

Global warming models aren't based solely on temperature deviations, and if what you say is even correct, then why isn't there a huge controversy going on within the scientific community as to whether or not global warming is a real phenomenon?  There isn't, you know... whatever the causes, global warming itself is considered an established fact.

Also, you may recall that, when challenged on their computer model a few years ago, global warming advocates quickly did a back-and-fill operation to admit that they did need to "refine" some of bases for their calculations and that their model is a work in progress but that they stood by their overall conclusions (Our postulates are wrong, but our results are still right?).

First of all, which "global warming advocates" do you refer to, and in what journal did they publish?  Second, the fact that they were challenged and decided to refine their calculations is an indication that peer review actually works, not the opposite... and if they did in fact stand by their conclusions while admitting that the calculations needed refining, and did so in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, then they discredited themselves... whoever they are.  Frankly, I don't find your fuzzy little anecdote all that convincing.

Finally, the number of scientists opposed to the current craze for human-caused global warming is about equal to those who support it in terms of both numbers and prestige, as measured by awards, etc.

In the popular media, the number of self-described authorities who oppose the current craze for human-caused global warming is about equal to those who support it in terms of numbers, anyway.  Prestige measured by awards?  Oh, please.  I used to have a boss who had won many awards for safety, and for skill in upper management... awarded by the insurance company owned by his father.  Prestige me no prestiges.

You seem to have ignored the fact that HUMAN-CAUSED global warming is not being touted as either an established fact or a disproved theory in any of the scientific literature... what you're talking about here is the popular media.

[AlanM]

Wasn't it Galileo who was heavily criticized and rebuked by his peers?  ???

Edited for spelling

[Ruger Mason]

I usually shy away from government reports since they are so apt to lie, but this isn't quite official -- Sen. Inhofe's excellent A Skeptics Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism, Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge to Journalists who Cover Global Warming

[KurtDaBear]

Wasn't it Galileo who was heavily criticized and rebuked by his peers?  ???

Edited for spelling

Among others, some of whom did not survive. Galileo was only sentenced to life imprisonment for heresy when he challenged the popular scientific orthodoxy of his time.