Comments (16)

• Neil Craig

• It is certainly the case that academics willing to say that this Emperor has no clothes are largely retired.

  I don't know if anybody has been physicaly threatened over GW at any university. I thought that was only over IQ studies.

• Published: August 14, 2006 10:02 AM

• M E Hoffer

• Has the same feel to it as when "Economists" are asked about the "necessity" of the Federal Reserve.

• Published: August 14, 2006 10:45 AM

• mikey

• Good article on GW by Patrick Bedard in the current Car and Driver.

• Published: August 14, 2006 11:32 AM

• Curt Howland

• I find it amusing that the only objections over at Digg have been:
  

  1) It wasn't obviously labeled as a parody or example
  

  2) Attacking the messenger.

• Published: August 14, 2006 11:35 AM

• David Spellman

• The first line of defence is very often attacking the messenger. This saves the embarassment of having to address flaws in the logic when they are wrong. Whenever I hear someone justify their position by attacking the messenger rather than addressing the message, I am pretty much assured that the message is right. The exception would be someone so arrogant that they can't bring themselves to defend their position against "unqualified" detractors.

  Before there were Ph.D.s, anyone was allowed to think. Since the ascendancy of the doctorate, only qualified persons are allowed to think. The rest of us are expected to merely believe.

  Of course, it is the patrons of the doctors that get to decide the doctrine. It would be naive to believe that Science is the business of discovering truth. Much of academia is devoted to finding facts that appear to support the doctrine decided a priori.

  Doctorates were originally granted in Divinity to give credibility to approved religious thinkers (iconoclasts). The practice spread to other endeavors in an effort to reinforce orthodoxy in the sciences. At graduation, we still don the robes of the priesthood in deference to the origin of the practice.

  It seems ironic that academicians would spend so much effort suppressing the truth instead of promoting the truth, but that is human nature and proof of the old saying about the Golden Rule being that "He who has the gold rules."

• Published: August 14, 2006 1:47 PM

• GunderDog

• There seem to be too different issues here. One is the fact that academic research is completely political and that if you do not believe the prevailing truth, you don't get the grants, the tenure etc. In this case, the writer is spot on.

  The other issue is the global warming theory. There is nothing in this letter, and not a lot of compelling evidence that the increase of CO2 is not a disaster waiting to happen. Just because everybody believes something does not make it true (see for example the lipid hypothesis, which is basically wrong). However, the geologic record indicates that CO2 levels have been steady for the past 100,000 years, and now they are going up fast. This can't be healthy for humans or other animals, and unless a meteor hit the earth and that fact is being covered up by the liberals, the increase in CO2 is due to the burning of bydrocarbons.

  So, other than "there have always been global fluctuations in weather" what are the sound counter arguments against the global warming theory? All I hear from critics is ad hominem attacks on the proponants, rather than a true intelectual debate. (Of course, many of the global warming proponents do the same thing -- "you're just bought off by the oil companies" -- but two wrongs don't make a right)

  I know it is against the religion of Austrians to believe anything done

• Published: August 15, 2006 3:53 PM

• GunderDog

• (sorry, comment got cut short)

  I know it is against the religion of Austrians to believe anything done by free enterprise is bad, but I have a different view of property rights than Austrians. In my view, my property rights includes the water below the land and the air above it, so the government does have a legitimate role in protecting the environment.
  

• Published: August 15, 2006 3:55 PM

• quincunx

• "In my view, my property rights includes the water below the land and the air above it, so the government does have a legitimate role in protecting the environment."

  Huh?

  What have you done to homestead the land below and air above?

  How does your property right give the government a legitimate function? Especially when they have actively prevented you from all sorts of property rights, including the legitimate underground and overhead that you might have homesteaded?

  You basically say that you have property rights and therefore the government has a legitimate role in stealing it. It is a non-sequitor.

  Nay, it is the otherway around - the fact is that you have property rights and therefore there is no legitimate role for government at all.

• Published: August 15, 2006 4:57 PM

• Robert C.

• At 3:53 on 15 August 2006, Gunderdog said:

  "the geologic record indicates that CO2 levels have been steady for the past 100,000 years, and now they are going up fast."

  What you have here is the fallacy created by using two different standards of measurement in order to indicate that a change has occurred. The measurements taken at present that show CO2 levels are quickly rising are taken *very often*, perhaps many times per year. The time variable "t" is known with accuracy and precision. This will show a great deal of fluctuation and change.

  The geological records referred to that show CO2 levels being very steady do not have the advantage of precision. When looking at the earth to determine the CO2 level at a given time "t" in the distant past, the value of "t" cannot be known to nearly the level of precision of today's values. Thus, the data collected is likely only the *mean* CO2 level in the region over a period of decades, even centuries!

  You ask what the sound arguments are against mainstream global warming theory. There really *aren't* any. Technology does not currently exist with which one can take retroactive measurements of past CO2 levels with a precise determination of what time "t" that value existed. This means that there is still much study that needs to be done (albeit I'd prefer it to be done without my being forced to cover the costs).

  However, the current uproar about global warming is related to how governments must react to it in terms of constructing public policy (i.e. how much freedom must be taken away from the people in response). This makes the pro and anti global warming researchers the parties in a court battle, with the mainstream as the prosecution's witnesses and the doubters as the defendant's witnesses.

  It is an American Tradition (albeit one largely forgotten), that the prosecution must ***prove beyond a reasonable doubt (!)*** that a crime is being committed. The doubters are on defense, so they need not prove innocence. They must merely find a hole in the prosecution (mainstream) theory that today's quick global warming is an event that has occurred because of hydrocarbon oxidation emissions.

  They have found that hole, and pointed it out to anyone willing to listen. The government is losing this battle against free enterprise, and the only way they've been able to continue fighting is by subsidizing expert witnesses with stolen tax dollars. At least the defense is being paid with money given to them voluntarily!

• Published: August 15, 2006 5:27 PM

• GunderDog

• quincunx:

  If I have a piece of land with a well on it (which I do)and my neighbor, who happens have more money and guns than I do does something on his land (like buries toxic waste) that pollutes the water in my well, and makes my family sick, it is the appropriate role or government to use force (as little as necessary, but as much as necessary) to make him cease and desist. The legitimate role of government (even in theory) is to protect persons and their property. That seems quite obvious to me.

  Robert C:

  Thank you for your comment. It is the kind of point that I have had a really hard time finding in the global warming skeptics web sites. I must respond to what seems to be a central element of your argument:

  “It is an American Tradition (albeit one largely forgotten), that the prosecution must ***prove beyond a reasonable doubt (!)*** that a crime is being committed. The doubters are on defense, so they need not prove innocence. They must merely find a hole in the prosecution (mainstream) theory that today's quick global warming is an event that has occurred because of hydrocarbon oxidation emissions.�

  The problem is we are not talking about a crime when it comes to the environment. I would just point out two examples - leaded gasoline and mercury. For decades the U.S. continued to allow leaded gasoline (and paint) it has had major health and environmental consequences. The companies that did not want to spend the money to address it used the “there is no proof� argument and held off change for years. Europe banned its use decades earlier and is much better off because of it. In terms of mercury, it is a similar story. Had we had stiffer standards in terms of mercury and coal power plants when they were all built, we would have a much healthier society today.

  I am not saying we should freak out with every theory of environmental doom and restrict industry. But I do think we need a lower standard than “beyond a reasonable double� when talking about the environment.

  Finally, I just think there should be a different standard for corporations than for individuals. Corporations only have rights because the government gives them rights. If you are a small business/proprietor (perhaps with investors or partners), I just think it’s different than if you are a large corporation.
  

• Published: August 15, 2006 10:07 PM

• quincunx

• "The legitimate role of government (even in theory) is to protect persons and their property"

  How can someone that expropriates your property without your consent be protecting your property? (Taxation)

  "That seems quite obvious to me."

  So should the above.

• Published: August 15, 2006 11:03 PM

• TokyoTom

• Mr. Potts:

  Your little parody is a rather poor and confused work of fiction that falls short in any number of ways - mainly in that it falls far from the truth, even as fable it offers little relevant insights into the dynamics of funding of climate change research or the incentives of climate change researchers, and offers no relief in the form of humor. In fact, your allusions to possible threats to Professor Lindzen are downright disturbing and seem to be a stretch to give this work more serious attention than it merits.

  Although I enjoyed your fine review of Amy Chuia's book, I fail to find any redeeming value in this one, and it is a puzzle to understand just how it managed to make it onto the blog.

  Professor Lindzen is promiment, tenured at MIT, and his disagreements with some of his colleagues, far from "hurting" or posing a threat to the livelihood of junior colleagues or other researchers, would be likely to increase the level of funding by highlighting areas where new research may resolve differences.

  As a senior professor, he is more likely to be influencial concerning tenure committees than being a disadvantage to junior collegaues. And as to funding, of course the big bucks are coming from the government - which in the case of the US is itself rather famously opposed to the so-called "consensus" and hardly oppressive of contrarians like Lindzen - as well as from firms that feel there's money to be made in investments in climate-related technologies. But it seems that you have missed this point, and somehow think that it's Gore rather than Bush who is making the decisions in the White House.

  Certainly Prof. Lindzen has no problems finding a voice on the WSJ's editorial page whenever he seems inclined to whine about how he is right and everyone else wrong. There must be some solace to him in that, even though he just can't seem to demonstrate the deus ex machina "lensing" device that will save us from taking meaningful measures to either forestall further global warming or to cope with the very obvious global warming that is manifesting itself and has already been committed to.

  Readers with a serious interest in funding and in Prof. Lindzen can get a start at these links:

  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/
  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/open-thread-on-lindzen-op-ed-in-wsj/
  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzens-hol-testimony/#alarmism
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html

  SIncerely,

  TT
  

• Published: August 16, 2006 7:08 AM

• Curtis

• I love the idea that controversial, dissenting ideas are likely to attract funding in today's scientific environment. Perhaps things really do work differently in Tokyo. Has TT ever been within 10,000 miles of the NSF?

  For what one of the US's leading statisticians found when he looked at the "scientific consensus" the RealClimate guys have blessed us with, start here.

  I'm afraid the wheels are rapidly separating themselves from this particular vehicle.

  (Now if we could only do the same for consensus economics. Sadly, its flaws are logical, not statistical, and there's no National Academy of Logic.)

  Tom, please tell us more about how all these people are thought-criminals, and should not be listened to.

• Published: August 17, 2006 2:01 PM

• TokyoTom

• Curtis, I would be pleased to be enlightened by you about how grants on climate change topics are distributed in the US, and how Lindzen, Gray and other denialists are prejudiced in getting funding, even from an Administration that has done its best to downplay global warming, stifle dissent from scientists in NOAA and NASA, and has its hands on lots of taxpayers dollars.

  Particularly if the "wheels are coming off the cart" of the global warming consensus as you say, one would think that the those such as Lindzen
  would have all manner of funds being shoved at them. Why isn't that happening?

  On the big picture, what will it take to persuade you that unfettered release of GHGs poses a problem that should be confronted? Even if all GHG emissions were to cease tomorrow, we have yet to feel the full effects of the forcing already underway from prior releases. Why do you think we should just keep the pedal to the metal?

  Even if the flow of research dollars is influenced by groupthink and an oppressive consensus, do you really intend to dismiss the research conducted outside the US and positions taken by the national academies of other countries?

  Afraid I didn't understand your last sentence.

  Regards,

  Tom

• Published: August 21, 2006 12:52 AM

• Sione Vatu

• GunderDog

  It is incumbent on he who asserts the positive to provide the proof. In other words the burden of proof falls on the claimant. This is important for that test requires a person making a claim about the nature of reality (claiming something like Global Warming Theory is correct for example) to produce proof for that claim. They are required to show on demand how they generated their conclusion with reference to evidence of reality and every step in the logical chain from induction, through each deductive step they made, right up to their conclusion (or assertion). If at any point there is an error, if the chain of logic is broken or found wanting, then the entire contention is unproven and can be dismissed. This is a high standard of proof, likely to be higher than "beyond reasonable doubt". For matters of science (which is supposed to be the business of investigating and understanding reality) it should be. Similarly it is vital to establish proven fact prior to demanding people act in a certain way (if ever such a demand is to be made). In that case it must be the very highest standard of proof that is necessary.

  Let's take an opposite situation and relax the standard for a moment. Let's assume we apply a precautionary principle of "just in case" and accept assertions based on acclamation. That is, if enough people yell loudly enough, well then we accept their claim, just in case they may be right. After all, one Moslem can be wrong but 10 million of them must be correct. And what about 100 million? That, surely, must be beyond any doubt at all. Where do you suppose that notion would lead?

  What that approach necessarily means is a departure from reality. Instead we are now in the business of accepting assertions based on head counts and loud promotions. But a standard of popularity is not a standard of proof at all. And accepting "just in case" arguments is not a matter of testing assertions against reality. Accepting claims to social metaphysics (lots of supporters share an assertion) is not a proof other than accepting there are plenty of people who believe in the assertion. In such a case we are accepting what some pressure group or mob delivers. A short look through history shows the consequences.

  Slavery? That was OK wasn't it? Many thought as much. And consider there were millions of people during the last World War who thought National Socialism was a good idea. They fought for it. There were millions more who thought Communism was good. There have been many who believe that women should be infibrilated (they are chattels anyway) and must be masked and covered in public. Many people had their claims but must those claims be accepted "just in case"? Or simply because a lot of people agree with them? Does that make them right?

  How about we go even further and require that he who expresses doubts in an assertion be required to prove it is incorrect? What occurs now? Now you are challenged to disprove contentions of any sort. It is up to you. Here is one. There are fairies and pixies who live at the bottom of my garden in possession of supernatural powers. There is no way you will be able to reject such nonsense. To do so requires you prove the negative. You'd need to visit my garden and stay there permanently. Even then those fairies may well appear and go about their business while you are asleep. Too bad! Here is another. Some guy calls you out in the pub and alleges you tortured and murdered his friend a while back. How do you disprove the allegation that you are a killer? Yet he never produces any evidence. You have yet to be caught and convicted he claims. You are a killer he chants. Perhaps the answer is to apply a lethal injection and end your life "just in case".

  Now to contend that the burden of proof be relaxed from the claimant of the positive necessarily leads to the acceptance of notions based on "just in case" or on acceptance by acclamation or both. Are you prepared to do this? If so, you are lowering your mind to the level of accepting nonsense as an alternative to reality. You have rejected your own ability to think, evaluate and act logically. If you do this then I will be expecting you to send me a couple of thousand dollars per month to keep the fairies fed and clothed and entertained. For if they are not, there is the possibility they will come to your place and something bad may occur. Send money now, just in case.

  As to environmentalism; lot's of faulty premise and arbitrary assertion. I have challenged many environmentalists to provide proofs for their contentions. Without exception they never do. They usually just make excuses and more assertions. At that point it is best to dismiss them and their ideas without further thought. The nature of their belief (and what they attempt to justify) is such that there is no point in discussion or argument.

  One important decision that needs to be made by each person is whether to accept that individuals are of primary importance or instead that the "environment" is (whatever it happens to be at the time- try defining it). Do "needs" of an "environment" over-ride the nature of human beings; their ability to think and act volitionaly? Does it have an "intrinsic" value more important than people?

  Talofa!

  Sione

  PS BTW had you considered that the examples you provided show government as the issue (the real problem)? Notice how it is the environmentalists who call for coercive interventions by the very organisation that causes the worst of the troubles they claim to oppose. Collectivist swine they are.

• Published: August 22, 2006 4:39 PM

• Marsha

• Don't know how I got into this rudimentary dialog, but I did. I bet every assertion was spell-checked....God forbid a word should be misspelled. Alas!

  Is anywone discussing the New World Order? Does anyone care??

• Published: August 29, 2007 2:44 AM