Scientists Who Hate Science
One of the things I remember about Rick Santorum's performance last night was when he said something about how he'd never fallen for the global warming hoax, unlike Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. The global warming lobby does not like it when people deny that global warming is a problem requiring expensive and ill-conceived solutions. Immediately the media attempted to rebut Santorum's comment by arguing that everyone knows global warming will kill us all within 3 years (or something).
Sixteen scientists discuss the "growing consensus" against freaking out over global warming in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today. Some excerpts:
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed. ...
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.
Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
Sounds reasonable enough. Particularly when compared to the claims of global warming hypers.
- Comment (24)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Nov '10
Re: Scientists Who Hate Science
In describing AGW as a hoax, Rick Santorum has adopted the language of Sen. Inhofe of Oklahoma.
The AGW crowd has made a fantastic claim for which we should demand incontrovertible evidence. No amount of data manipulation has helped them to meet this standard.
Remediation of their conjured menace would require transfers of wealth that would make even Marx blush, and this does not even account for the future wealth forgone by transitioning to the carbon-free society of which they fantasize.
Living in cold, dark, misery will be the inevitable consequence of following their prescriptions. If this is our dream, we might as well live in Newt's moon colony. At least it would be cheaper.
Jul '11
Re: Scientists Who Hate Science
I know I'll be in the minority here, but this is something of a pet peeve of mine. Referring to global warming as a "hoax" is not helpful. One can be very skeptical of the claims made by dubious climate models and be dead-set against the costly "solutions" proposed by anti-industrial Luddites, while at the same time acknowledge that there's a very good chance that climate change is real, albeit poorly understood. Skepticism is great, but to insist that decades of climate science is part of some vast conspiracy comes across as little better than the rantings of the aluminum foil beanie-types. There are far more unanswered questions than answered ones and some humility from all sides of the debate would be welcome.
Dec '11
Re: Scientists Who Hate Science
Although there is nothing wrong with calling global warming a hoax it is not necessarily the best way to go at it. People have been brought up to think that science(or at least what we know that we call science. Since from time to time what we know does a 180) cannot be influenced by the opinions of the observer. The reason why we do double-blind studies because the person asking the questions can influence the result. Also people don't know that in many fields of science approximations are needed. This is because for some mathematical models there is no exact answer or it is too cumbersome to calculate. Also I think that weather prediction models rely on partial order differential equations. Which if you ask mathematicians can have huge error bounds. In fact weather prediction models were the cause of the birth of chaos theory or the butterfly effect if you will. So in my opinion weather prediction has always been more of an Art rather than a Science and any results need to be heavily scrutinized.
Edited on Jan 29 at 8:42amNov '10
Re: Scientists Who Hate Science
As I have followed this debate (albeit as a layman), the claim that I do not see skeptics making is that climate change is not real. The question is what is causing it. As you say, it is poorly understood.
Decades of climate science is not, to me at least, part of some vast conspiracy.
Cont...
May '10
Re: Scientists Who Hate Science
Tell @Ricochet follower Rupert Murdoch to get Tim Blair on a podcast!
Ahem. But anyway, that was my favorite Santorum moment last night. Out of many. And it's a total winner. Hit it hard. Hit the pipeline, lightbulbs, energy prices, drilling. The press will oppose it. The press often loses. The polls are on our side. Take the ball and spike it in the endzone.
Nov '10
Re: Scientists Who Hate Science
...Continued
As you say, Cobalt Blue, there are far more questions than answers. It seems a fascinating field, but as I perceive it, it is the AGW crowd (to be distinguished from climate scientists in general) which wants the debate shut down. This is a shame because there is so much left to learn, and when we are told that it is the time to take action, it presumes that all that needs to be known is known.
What causes the earth's climate to change is a very complicated mystery. Let's continue to try to understand it.
May '10
Re: Scientists Who Hate Science
Because look at Australia. The government is about to collapse because of cap'n'trade. They poll worse than Obama. And their energy is cheaper.
Jun '10
Re: Scientists Who Hate Science
It depends. Is the earth in a warming trend? It has been, though there is some recent evidence of cooling (too short to know if it's really a new trend). Is the climate changing? Yes, it's always changing Is there more carbon in the atmosphere than several decades ago? Yes.
Here's the problem. Climate change alarmism--the allegedly scientific claim that AGW is true and that it's a big crisis--has every element of a hoax. It relies on bullying by advocates and demonizing opponents. It relies on hoax-like data manipulation (e.g., the IPCCC Reports; the Mann hockey-stick graph). It relies on so-called objective scientists withholding or destroying data. And it relies on "garbage in/garbage out" models. I don't know how you can call that anything but a hoax.
Oct '10
Re: Scientists Who Hate Science
(Emphasis added.) I think the big push for green regulation in the next years will come from big businesses that have just now, as the tide turns and the public moves on to something else, managed to launch their 'sustainability' initiatives. Far easier for them to lobby for extra oversight than try to steer their enterprises in a new direction. (I wonder how the GOP will respond...)
Apr '11
Re: Scientists Who Hate Science
Good science always wins out in the end. If it is allowed to be open and free of personal preferences. The data never lies, but scientists can lie about the data. As a scientist what I find disturbing about the Global Warming debate is that no one actually discusses the science. It is a political debate where one side has claimed science supports it without actually knowing what the science says and the other chooses to assume all the science must be a lie. This leads to outlandish statements made by both sides.
The best argument to give against the AGW lobby is to through the data back in their face. There are enough unknowns and inconsistencies to indicate the need for continued study. You don't need to call all the science a hoax, just point out that we don't know enough to make such a big commitment of money and resources.
You will win the argument when they foam at the mouth and claim there is no time to wait. An argument only a fanatic would make.
Jun '11
Re: Scientists Who Hate Science
I'm willing to accept the idea that AGW is not a Piltdown Man type of fraud. So let's find a more appropriate descriptor than "hoax": how about "illusion?" Or even "delusion?" The bottom line is, we should not transfer unimaginable amounts of wealth trying to "remedy" an illusion or delusion any more than we should trying to remedy a hoax.
Jul '11
Re: Scientists Who Hate Science
Absolutely right. My concern is that by completely dismissing evidence of climate change we end up sounding just as closed-minded and politically motivated as the Al Gores of the world, thereby undercutting support for otherwise sound policies. Like you say, how much of climate change is induced by human activities is a big question, but we would be wise to recognize that it is still a question. As KS points out in comment#5, let's push the issues of drilling, light bulbs, etc., as related pro-growth policies can be most effectively justified on their own merits (to the dismay of the media) and do not benefit from claims that global warming concerns are fraudulent.
Nov '10
Re: Scientists Who Hate Science
Cobalt Blue
Absolutely right. My concern is that by completely dismissing evidence of climate change we end up sounding just as closed-minded and politically motivated as the Al Gores of the world, thereby undercutting support for otherwise sound policies. Like you say, how much of climate change is induced by human activities is a big question, but we would be wise to recognize that it is still a question. As KS points out in comment#5, let's push the issues of drilling, light bulbs, etc., as related pro-growth policies can be most effectively justified on their own merits (to the dismay of the media) and do not benefit from claims that global warming concerns are fraudulent. · 1 minute ago
Amen!
Jul '11
Re: Scientists Who Hate Science
tabula rasa
Here's the problem. Climate change alarmism--the allegedly scientific claim that AGW is true and that it's a big crisis--has every element of a hoax. It relies on bullying by advocates and demonizing opponents. It relies on hoax-like data manipulation (e.g., the IPCCC Reports; the Mann hockey-stick graph). It relies on so-called objective scientists withholding or destroying data. And it relies on "garbage in/garbage out" models. I don't know how you can call that anything but a hoax. ·
Good points, all. But as you yourself indicate, those are characteristics of the alarmism, not the science. As many others have written, AGW alarmism seems more akin to a religious movement, or perhaps an episode of Groupthink, than actual science. But we should be careful not to dismiss real evidence of climate change on the basis of shoddy science by some researchers. I would prefer that we have enough cognizance of our ignorance and (Hayekian) respect for the complexity of the issue that we don't paint ourselves into a corner.
Jul '11
Re: Scientists Who Hate Science
Colin B Lane
I'm willing to accept the idea that AGW is not a Piltdown Man type of fraud. So let's find a more appropriate descriptor than "hoax": how about "illusion?" Or even "delusion?" The bottom line is, we should not transfer unimaginable amounts of wealth trying to "remedy" an illusion or delusion any more than we should trying to remedy a hoax. · 16 minutes ago
Agreed.
By the way,
I like your avatar ... what is that thing?
Edited on Jan 27 at 10:10amJun '10
Re: Scientists Who Hate Science
Cobalt Blue
Good points, all. But as you yourself indicate, those are characteristics of the alarmism, not the science. As many others have written, AGW alarmism seems more akin to a religious movement, or perhaps an episode of Groupthink, than actual science. But we should be careful not to dismiss real evidence of climate change on the basis of shoddy science by some researchers. I would prefer that we have enough cognizance of our ignorance and (Hayekian) respect for the complexity of the issue that we don't paint ourselves into a corner. · 3 minutes ago
I agree. We need the best science we can find, and we should not begin making significant policy decisions until we have it. But we must remember that a large segment of so-called scientists have embraced AGW (and the radical agenda they claim must be followed), as has the MSM. So while we try to get the science (and I don't think we're all that close), we must keep fighting the political fight.
Nov '10
Re: Scientists Who Hate Science
It is not global warming that is a hoax. Very few scientists deny that there has been a general increase in global mean temperature of about 0.6 degrees C over the last 100 years. What is the "hoax" -- or more appropriately extreme groupthink, pack behavior, gross overstatement, scientific manipulation and pseudoscience, is the arrogation of this bland statistic for sweeping policy changes that will seriously harm the world economy and standards of living everywhere. And the portrayal of it as some apocalyptic scenario.
The word "hoax" is not inappropriate but chaining it to "global warming" is inaccurate and plays into the hands of climate alarmists. There is no good reason to believe that we are anywhere near a "tipping point", or that any noticeable harm to the environment would result if we burnt every drop of every fossil fuel reserve currently known. CO2 levels would not even come close to those found in the geologic past, at which times the biosphere fared extremely well and the earth did not burn to a crisp (in fact, it iced over at one point, with CO2 levels orders of magnitudes higher than we are capable of attaining).
Edited on Jan 27 at 5:06pmAug '10
Re: Scientists Who Hate Science
Cobalt Blue By the way,
I like your avatar ... what is that thing?
That's a macaque that found a tourist's camera and started playing with it, taking several photos.
http://boingboing.net/2011/07/05/macaque-takes-self-p.html
Re: Scientists Who Hate Science
Yup
Re: Scientists Who Hate Science
Alas, the lefties are impervious to facts. There is a huge campaign to maintain "climate change" orthodoxy in schools in the US (and, I suspect, Canada, UK, etc etc). The WSJ law blog reports on it today. And Oregon Public radio has a sob story about valiant Galileo-like teachers trying to maintain their high standards against the Tea Party protestors urging, not that teachers stop teaching climate change, but that they present a "balanced" view. Balance! How that makes my blood boil. Speaking of which, here is Oregon NPR's fair-and-balanced summary of the curriculum battle: Reminiscent of the evolution-vs.-creationism clash, the overwhelming scientific evidence that says humans are causing the warming of the planet has emerged as the new battlefield in middle and high schools in the U.S. Overwhelming!! And this is in a news story! Partly underwritten by my tax dollars!