Climate Change has left the realm of cold, logical scientific inquiry and has now become Religious Orthodoxy--Do Not Question Authority!
Another CNN meteorologist attacked the concept that man is somehow responsible for changes in climate last year. Rob Marciano charged Al Gore’s 2006 movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” had some inaccuracies.
“There are definitely some inaccuracies,” Marciano said during the Oct. 4, 2007 broadcast of CNN’s “American Morning.” “The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming.”
Marciano also said that, “global warming does not conclusively cause stronger hurricanes like we’ve seen,” pointing out that “by the end of this century we might get about a 5 percent increase.”
His comments drew a strong response and he recanted the next day saying “the globe is getting warmer and humans are the likely the main cause of it.”
Like Copernicus and Galileo before him, Marciano bowed down and recanted under the weighty glare of Pope Albertus Maximus, Supreme Pontiff of The Church of Gaia and the International Climate Change Inquisition.
Larrey Anderson over at American Thinker explains how the climate change crowd's logic has collapsed upon itself, devolving the arrogant movement into a petty, incoherent religion. Here is a large excerpt from his article:
The original "climate change" hypothesis was that the planet was getting colder and that it would continue getting colder. That was a very simple hypothesis and was easily proven or refuted. Planet keeps getting colder = hypothesis correct. Planet gets warmer = hypothesis incorrect.
The world got warmer instead of colder. The "climate change" hypothesis was rewritten. This time the planet was facing a catastrophic meltdown. The world was not only getting warmer -- it was going to keep getting warmer at an ever increasing and life-threatening rate.
I remember this hypothesis too. It was scary. Computers were fed information that the world was now heating up and asked, again, "what will the weather be tomorrow?" This time the computers spit out: "hotter." Good computers.
The computers said it would be even hotter the day after tomorrow. Hotter still next week, and next month. And in a few years? Forget about it.
The hypothesis predicted, and the computers affirmed, an exponential increase in temperatures was being caused by the exponential increase in man made green house gases. Al Gore's famous (and refuted) "hockey stick graph" proved it. In other words, the earth would heat fast, then faster, then faster still. Man made global warming was predicted to be a run away train on a steep downhill incline that had to be stopped and stopped immediately.
That was the hypothesis. It was simple. And it was just as easily proved or refuted as the global cooling hypothesis. World gets steadily and increasingly warmer = hypothesis correct. Planet gets colder = hypothesis incorrect.
But while concentrations of CO2, the culprit behind man made global warming, continued to rise -- the temperature did not. The empirical data refused to cooperate with the hypothesis. In the last few years the earth's temperature has leveled off. It may be dropping.
Oops. Another hypothesis bites the dust. Not to worry. The hypothesis has been rewritten, once again. Now we have a "climate crisis." Long term global warming is causing short term global cooling that will, eventually, result in long term global warming. Really. That is the new hypothesis.
The official reason being given is that the "weather is not the climate." For those readers not skilled in dialectical huckstering, the argument seems to be that the weather can get colder while the climate gets warmer.
Proponents of global warming finally have an irrefutable, because incoherent, theory guaranteed to win any debate. This hypothesis cannot be refuted. If the "weather" cools it proves that the "climate" is getting warmer. If the weather gets warmer then the climate gets warmer. As the barker shouts out at the carnival,
"Winner! Winner! Winner!"
"Winner! Winner! Winner!"
This latest hypothesis is a violation of the most basic of the laws of logic: the principle of non-contradiction. Something cannot be both A and not A. The weather cannot get colder while the climate gets hotter anymore than the earth can be flat while the world is round. This is not science, or logic; this is unabashed nonsense.
Yes. Climate science has come to this: We are now being told, in effect, to ignore the data and believe the hypothesis. I have recently written that global warming is not a science -- it is a religion. I take it back. Global warming, aka climate crisis, is now a crisis of logic. In other words, it is insanity.
Larrey Anderson is a writer, a philosopher, and submissions editor for American Thinker. His latest award-winning novel is The Order of the Beloved. His memoir, Underground: Life and Survival in the Russian Black Market, has just been released.
Links
http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/climate_crisis_logic_crisis.html
37 comments:
Read this.
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
Excerpts
"Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. In the last decade, however, the rate of rise nearly doubled.3
Global surface air temperatures rose three-quarters of a degree Celsius (almost one and a half degrees Fahrenheit) in the last century, but at twice that amount in the past 50 years. Eleven of the last 12 years (1995-2006) are the warmest since accurate recordkeeping began in 1850.4
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have shrunk in both area and mass. Data from JPL's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
Precipitation and evaporation patterns over the oceans have changed, as evidenced by increased ocean salinity near the equator and decreased salinity at higher latitudes.6"
I think the logic is that the weather in certain places might get colder, but where ir counts (icecaps) it's getting warmer.
Vegas Snow; Arctic hot.
Data from ice cores indicate that between AD 800 and 1300 the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a mild climate, with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed.
Between 1989 and 1993, U.S. and European climate researchers drilled into the summit of Greenland's ice sheet, obtaining a pair of 3 km (2 mi) long ice cores. Analysis of the layering and chemical composition of the cores has provided a revolutionary new record of climate change in the Northern Hemisphere going back about 100,000 years and illustrated that the world's weather and temperature have often shifted rapidly from one seemingly stable state to another, with worldwide consequences.
What's your point? Variation Happens?
what were the consequences?
Natural.
Consequences? We're still here, aren't we?
Change happens, and so do mistakes:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3563532/The-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html
I talk about NASA's big oopsie here:
http://warskill.blogspot.com/2008/11/global-warming-follies.html
Ice is again growing at a rapid pace:
http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+Pace+on+Record/article13385.htm
See? It's like ping pong, you can go back and forth forever, which bolsters my contention that Climate Change is a religion, not a science.
BTW, I noticed you didn't argue with the logic of Mr. Anderson.
Well, gotta go outside and chop some wood. Man it's cold out there!
So, what your really trying to say is that the sacrifice to stop the natural disasters that may vey likely occur as a result of climate change are not significant enough for us to endure the economic hardships that go hand in hand with trying to stop climate change.
You're basically saying that we should let the chips fall where they may, and deal with it is it come, more or less?
If that's so, I think I could basically agree, although I think banning plastic bags, etc... are mild measures we could take that wouldn't devastate the economy that could help subdue some of the natural disasters hat may be impending.
Look at the words you use: May, likely, could...
I am all for simple measures to protect the environment. I voluntarily pay an extra $5/month to my garbage service to have a recycling bin as well as a trash can.
So, what sort of measures did I ask for that you're unwilling to deal with?
If we made recycling free (have your 5$ back) you'd be opposed to it?
If your grocer had to use cardboard boxes, or you had to buy reusable bags for your groceries, you're be opposed?
May, could, might, likely, etc... I still think if something is likely to happen (not certain to happen, which nothing is) we should do a little bit to try and prevent it, if in fact it will happen. I don't want to devastate the world economy worse than it is already, I just would implement simple gov't incentives for recycling, hybrid buying, etc... and revenue neutral taxes on polluters.
Why is that so devastating? Or maybe we agree on this one and have just been talking to media-characterizations of eachothers positions for all this time.
What I am saying is that anthropogenic global warming is an unsettled hypothesis.
Is the rise in temperature from 1850-today natural or induced? Insufficient empirical evidence to determine.
Should we reduce carbon dioxide emissions because they cause global warming?
No!
Should we reduce carbon dioxide emissions because we are putting something into the atmosphere that wouldn't be there otherwise?
Yes! To the best of our ability and within reasonable measures.
I agree with Silverfiddle that 'environmentalism' has become a religion to many. The same people who scream that we must cut carbon dioxide emissions are the same people who scream we shouldn't build nuclear power plants because of the danger of radiation and that we shouldn't build windmills because they kill birds. They offer no viable alternatives.
We could significantly reduce carbon emissions simply by converting to nuclear power.
But no!!!! Don't let that boogey man out from under the bed.
will I be able to cook hotdogs with out a fire oneday? redneck ron
Hey Rum, your hotdog was cooked a long time ago.
I have a friend of mine who has a pretty encyclopedic knowledge of biology and environmental issues who tells me the same thing about this cooling/warming discussion.
It is enough to make me skeptical and to make me believe that what we need a lot more of on this question is not more catostrophism to cut off this debate, but more debate and discussion.
When you are so afraid of skepticism of your ideas and of debate and discussion based upon that skepticism, and you have to resort to fear-based calls for action in lieu of such discussion, it is a very bad sign for your ideas.
If your ideas are strong, most people will take them seriously. If they are not, you have no business enforcing any measures on anyone.
Though I have generally given climate scientists the benefit of the doubt on this question, Silverfiddle, you and Finntann give me good reason to question this science more than I have, up until this point.
And if those in favor of policies to limit global warming cannot answer those questions adequately and, instead resort to political catastrophism to avoid even considering that they might be wrong on this question or any question in this discussion, I will, at some point, stop giving them the benefit of the doubt.
I am tired of political muscle being confused with more honest debate on this issue and all issues, really. I'm going to start taking this skepticism on this issue much more seriously the more environmentalists seek to shove proposals down my throat without taking this debate more seriously.
If this is a debatable (contentious) issue -which it seems to be- the logical response would be to take some action for risk of permanently damaging the atmosphere/environment. This is what I've explained more than once and had no serious response to. The reason why no one can respond to it is because if they could, they'd be liable to get the chair of the philosophy department as Princeton.
I didn't suggest the action be so dramatic as to have severe negative economic consequences, but only some sort of reasonable market intervention.
As a home builder, it kills me that I can't have things installed into the homes that I build that I would have in my own house, e.g. those energy efficient light-bulbs, better insulation, more efficient shower heads, etc...
The reason I can't make any of these standard on all the homes I build is because the consumer only sees that the house is more expensive than the one next door; and therefore doesn't buy it, but instead buy the house next door.
If everyone had to have a certain quality window, insulation, etc... (although we do have standards -bylaws- they have not been changed so as to be environmentally friendly) I would have my houses build in an environmentally respectable manner, and still be able to sell them.
That's really all I want to be able to do. Even if climate change is not real, I would still like to build energy efficient homes because in the long run, they're also economically efficient.
Now tell how I am trying to end the debate, or scare people into action?
Global warming is just a theory/hypothesis and will remain so until the waters rise over Florida. There is no debate over that. That is what is called a non-sequitur. I agree that you're right about that, but it doesn't have any implications other than restating the obvious (we can't predict the future with any degree of certainty).
What I am saying is that so long as climate change is a possibility, it would be much more cautious and reasonable to do something rather than nothing. Your alternative is literally nothing. You're suggesting that the gov't not intervene at all. I'm suggesting very small, very reasonable amounts of intervention; not economically harmful, but environmentally beneficial.
If the policies can't meet both of those conditions they should be dropped until the ?atlantic? rises over florida?
Relentless: Speaking of logic, you never refuted Larrey Anderson's argument.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=36140
The title of this article basically gives it away; "What's in a Name?" Anderson is a dipshit.
I think that the earth surface temperature has steadily increased, at least according to this:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
That's the key to global warming, and the key to climate change is basically everything else that is going wrong, as I understand it.
I didn't think you could assail his logic...
His logic is fine. It's just a non-sequitor. It doesn't mean anything
There, now it's your turn, and let me remind you that there's a university chair in it for you if you succeed.
You basically have to argue (despite your skepticism) that you're sure that climate change & global warming (which we now know are two wholly different things) are not real, and that the future will remain much like the past. This would be a great perversion to the word skepticism.
I wrote a blog post with you in mind, Silverfiddle:
http://reaching-oblivion.blogspot.com/
relentless said: "The title of this article basically gives it away; "What's in a Name?" Anderson is a dipshit."
this from someone who thinks of his 10th grade social studies teacher as the world's leading authority on global warming.
typical of a lib to resort to name calling when they can't attack on the basis of facts.
I don't know for sure that current climate change is outside the first, second, or third standard deviation. Nobody knows. If it is not, then there is no problem and we should drop the whole thing.
No one has proven that this is out of the ordinary
If it is, the question becomes, is it man-made? If it's not, what should we do?
If it is man-made, then we should be changing our ways, but we should do it without destroying our economy. That is the engine that makes the money to solve these problems.
The very fact that the global warming crowd is so dogmatic, combined with respected scientists who dissent, gives me pause.
Could a meteorite destroy my house? Sure, it's possible. Should I construct a million dollar shield based on the possibility? Hell no.
Take your university chair. Princeton wouldn't let a hick like me anywhere near the place. I have too little education and too much common sense. Plus I'm one of those bible clingin' gun totin' hillbillies they so disdain.
I DID ATTACK BASED ON FACTS!
Stop saying everything I do is typical of liberal, blah, blah...
I explained why I used my 10th grade social studies teacher. He, as a knowledgable layperson gave his informed opinion as to what would happen in the future if global warming was real, it came true, end of story.
I agreed that we should destroy the economy, if fact I wrote that we should implement policies that are both environmentally beneficial, and economically reasonable (e.g. wouldn't destroy anyone's economy).
I agreed many times that I, nor anyone else proved that the future would be like this or like that, my only point was that if climate change & global warming are so contentious, it seems that we should do 'something' even very little, so as to avoid permanently damaging the environment past the point of no return (which some argue we have already gone past).
Nonetheless, you fell back on ad hominum instead of refuting Larrey Anderson's argument.
And nobody can statistically explain what is going on. Couple that with pliable hypotheses and you have all the makings of a scam.
I got NASA's explanation of the global warming/climate change distinction. If you had read it you'd understand that it refuted Sander's argument.
Supposed name problem refutation:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=36140
Supposed temperature decrease refutation:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Name climate change & global warming identify two different issues, and the earths surface temperature has steadily gone up to a point where scientists are unsure if it's possible to get them back down. David Suzuki, "The Good News About Climate Change." Apparently he thinks there are some very simple, non-devastating measures to be taken to reverse the effects of climate change & global warming.
NASA if full of true-believers who are using my tax money to proselytize. They've been doing a lot of "revising" these past few years.
http://www.amos.org.au/publications/cid/4/t/publications
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/05/the-zen-and-the.html
This is information ping pong. Things were so much better back in the old days when the intelligentsia would simply tell up yokels what to think.
The data is at best inconclusive.
Backacha!
I AGREE! It's inconclusive, but using my action vs. in-action model, logically we must start taking some measures against the POSSIBILITY of calamity.
You're writing to some sort of media characterized environmental polemic. I'm not him/her/it. Write to me, and my arguments.
That the swindle movie is controversial is a point in my favour. It's like arguing for God (except I'm the believer). You're saying that I can't prove his existence, and I'm saying that I don't need to, that there is still good reason to believe.
I'm not asking you to go to church every sunday, just keep recycling, and if grocery stores stop putting your groceries in plastic bags, don't protest it.
Believe me, I see the religious nature of my side of the debate. The reason that it is religious is the same reason why religion is religious. It's attempting to predict the future. In relgions case, with no data, in my case, with some.
I also think we're asking for less from you. Just stop being such a free-maket ideologue, and let the gov't intervene, so long as it doesn't devastate the economy.
http://reaching-oblivion.blogspot.com/
You should read this though. It has you in mind.
The data on marijuana is inconclusive. Should it be legalized too? Actually it should. The possible negative repurcussions are far less severe than if you're wrong about climate change.
And that's the crux of my argument. Attack IT please. My argument is about possible outcomes.
Don't tell me I don't know that climate change is real again. I already admitted that.
relentless little chicken: "And that's the crux of my argument. Attack IT please. My argument is about possible outcomes."
it's also possible the moon could come crashing into the earth. should be build a $140 trillion shield to prevent it from happening? would it do any good even if we did?
I don't smoke pot, but I wouldn't have a problem if government decided to legalize it. Medical people say, from a health aspect, it's like smoking really tar-laden cigarettes, and that it is bad for your health, but so it eating too much candy.
Anecdotal evidence shows it can destroy personal initiative, and mental health people are studying it's deleterious affects upon the brain.
I tend towards libertarianism on many things, so take that for what it's worth.
The premise is weak for the global warming argument. That is really what the argument is about.
If the premise were easily provable and demonstrable, e.g. Man is causing climate change that will destroy the planet, then there would be no argument.
But that is not provable, and smart, reasonable people on both sides are in disagreement.
Proponents say "look around you" to see climate change. Deniers say "look how cold it is" and are shouted down as confusing weather with climate.
So, Relentless, your logic is sound, IF one accepts the premise. Unfortunately, the premise is quite flimsy. You're making a sail out of tissue paper.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.