Competition is good. It is good in the economy. It is good in politics. It is good in philosophy. And it is good in global warming science because it brings a fuller and more complete picture of what may or may not be going on.
Global Warming Hysterics tried–and still flail away–to stifle competition in order to promote a political agenda that would bring international technocrats (i.e. them) to international power with authority to control economies and the way we live our lives, while fulfilling leftists’ dreams of wealth redistribution. But the halcyon days of being able to cause panic have thankfully passed. The debate, which they declared “over,” isn’t. The “consensus” is shattering. The credibility has collapsed. The GWH movement is fracturing. One became so freaked out over the debacle he has materially harmed his career through unethical behavior.
When 16 scientists wrote a heterodox piece in the WSJ, it generated quite a push-back claiming, for example, that they lacked the expertise to question. They have now published a very strong rejoinder. First, they show how the IPCC computer models–based upon which we were supposed to dismantle our economies–have proved wrong. From “Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming:”
From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth’s temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.
The Trenberth letter tells us that “computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean.” The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world’s oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of “missing heat” hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measured—the deep ocean?
I know, just evil oil company propaganda!
This is devastating:
Trenberth et al. tell us that the managements of major national academies of science have said that “the science is clear, the world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible.” Apparently every generation of humanity needs to relearn that Mother Nature tells us what the science is, not authoritarian academy bureaucrats or computer models.
Exactly. The movement went wrong when it morphed from a scientific inquiry into an ideology–and often an anti human one at that, which is what really piqued my interest.
The question of whether and to what extent human beings are impacting the climate is certainly a legitimate and worthwhile area for scientific inquiry. In other words, I reject the charge it is all a hoax. But GWH is not science. Like we have also seen in other areas, political activists have corrupted the proper role and process of science. But I think the jig may finally be up.
February 23rd, 2012 | 11:02 am
Whenever I am exploring a arguments for a particular position on philosophy, politics or science I spend a some time reading the writings of its best proponents. Once I feel I have a basic understanding of the position, I will spend a more time reading the best critics.
I have always found that I can gain a better sense of the strength of an argument by reading its critics rather than its proponents.
Proponents can always dress up a weak argument so that it sounds convincing upon first exposure, but it quickly falls apart when scrutinized by the opposition. On the other hand, if the critic’s argument is weak and implausible, then the proponents argument becomes that much more convincing.
Somewhat similarly I find that I learn much more about the quality of a book on Amazon by reading the negative reviews than the positive reviews. If the book is really good it will have many positive reviews and the negative reviews will be lame. On the other hand, I frequently find books with many positive reviews that have a relatively high overall positive rating, but which have some convincing and well-informed negative reviews. I generally avoid such books.
If the consensus climate scientists are really convinced of the strength of their position, they are definitely pursuing a poor strategy. Instead of trying to mute their critics, they should be highlighting their work and pointing out its weaknesses on the merits. I become suspicious of any position when its proponents think their best strategy is to ignore critics, criticize their integrity and motives or appeal to authority.
Competition is indeed good in the market place of ideas.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 23rd, 2012 at 11:40 am
Well, some of the comments on Amazon about my books were from people who clearly never read it, particularly the one on animal rights. But I digress. : )
February 23rd, 2012 | 11:31 am
[...] Global Warming Hysteria: Breaking the MonopolyFirst Things (blog)And it is good in global warming science because it brings a fuller and more complete picture of what may or may not be going on. Global Warming Hysterics tried–and still flail away–to stifle competition in order to promote a political agenda that …Global Warming Crowd Opposed in VirginiaCanada Free PressConcerned scientists rebut global warming advocatesExaminer.comIs catastrophic global warming, like the Millenium Bug, a mistake?The Independent (blog)French Tribune -This is Somerset -Summit County Citizens Voiceall 11 news articles » [...]
February 23rd, 2012 | 1:35 pm
[...] Global Warming Hysteria: Breaking the Monopoly » Secondhand Smoke [...]
February 24th, 2012 | 8:09 am
Thanks for a fine piece, Mr. Smith!
AGW is failing as a theory because it does not correspond to reality. A theory is falsified by it’s predictions, and AGW predicted 1.a hotspot in the tropical troposphere 2.an increase in precipitation worldwide 3.an increase in the rate of sea level rise 4. an increase in ocean temperatures 5.. steadily warming years 6. melting glaciers – particularly the Himalayas. We see that none of this has transpired. Only the last has happened at all, and it only with some glaciers. The Himalayas, it turns out, are doing fine. AGW theory cannot account for the “pause” in global warming. It cannot propose a mechanism for transfering heat to the bottom of the oceans without first warming the surface, it cannot explain why the sea level rise is not accelerating. It cannot explain why worldwide precipitation levels are much the same as always. When a theory fails to explain reality it is falsified.
But there’s too much money and power vested in this to give it up.
February 24th, 2012 | 9:37 am
These “Alarmists” have to many $’s in the pot, to let it go without a fight.
February 24th, 2012 | 7:15 pm
The graph definitely shows a trend of increase. You ARE aware of linear regression analysis, aren’t you?
HW
February 25th, 2012 | 4:44 am
[...] Republican believes his work is not done. Next week, the senator said his plans for the …Global Warming Hysteria: Breaking the MonopolyFirst Things (blog)Diagnosing the Climate Over at the Wall Street JournalReason Online (blog)Simon [...]
February 26th, 2012 | 2:51 am
[...] of global warmingTulsa WorldCurtis Caughey: In defense of Dr. Martin HertzbergSummit Daily NewsFirst Things (blog) -The Independent (blog) -Huffington Postall 17 news [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact