Comments (38)

• michael

• I always try to keep an open mind, so is there a 'not' missing from the intro?

• Published: May 13, 2007 10:12 PM

• Bogdan

• Great info ! However, the Letter to the Canadian P.M. dated April 18 2006, can hardly be considered skeptical about global warming and IPCC's official position on the matter, in my opinion.

• Published: May 13, 2007 10:42 PM

• Sudha Shenoy

• Bogdan: You're right. Don't know how it got in. Think I mixed it up with the anti-Kyoto open letter.

• Published: May 13, 2007 11:38 PM

• MikeE

• Also the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

• Published: May 13, 2007 11:50 PM

• Brent

• Here is a quote from the commencement speaker at my school this weekend:

  "This graduating class is charged with two things: 1) Climate Change; and 2) Reducing 'Our' Dependence on Foreign Energy."

  Maybe this wouldn't be so bad, but the speaker is a US Senator.

• Published: May 14, 2007 12:32 AM

• Ozzie

• Roger Pielke's Sr's site is the best.

  Roger is a true scientist and a gentleman. The sort of scientist that Professors Of Austrian Economics would be happy to be a colleague of.

  He is like a fallen angel surrounded by apes.
  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  I'm a big fan of Roger but I'm immensely proud of Sudha after listening to her terrific lectures in the Mises archive.

  A good Aussie girl and only a few hundred miles north of where I am.

  I only wish I had it together to go up to Newcastle and listen to her lectures.

  What was really cool in one of her taped Mises lectures was you get the impression that there weren't many students there. And all these historic Austrian bigshots were there.

  And there they are.... these historic Austrian bigshots.... interested in nothing but the truth of the matter.

  Not trying to pretend they know everything, and there are these historic bigshots asking her all sorts of stuff as if they were fervently taking notes.

  Its really something that seperates this school now from the other economists... I almost put the "economists" in scare quotes the first time around.

  Only interested in the reality of it. Not afraid to ask questions, Not pretending they know everything.

  And thats the sort of environment that you get at Rogers blog as well.

  Don't miss Sudhas' taped lectures.

• Published: May 14, 2007 2:57 AM

• Ozzie

• LOOK CHRIS.

  What is this peer-reviewed crap that you are talking.

  The last thing you want is some sort of ignorant quasi-religious-faith in peer-review.

  Because the whole point of science is that it ought to be robust enough to withstand and overcome rampant institutional dysfunction.

  And if you are going to be some bigoted and sucky-face peer-review sychophant than that will mitigate against things working out alright during a time when there is institutional dysfunction.

  And if the time of institutional dysfunction is a happening thing in MOST time periods than you are really barking up the wrong tree now aren't you?

• Published: May 14, 2007 7:02 AM

• Ozzie

• Oh for the sake of Allah and all his hoochie coochie mommas....

  .. I read it again and I was almost sick.

  Peer-review this. And peer-review that. And how could we have progressed out of the dark ages with THAT sort of covenant.

• Published: May 14, 2007 7:11 AM

• Nick Bradley

• I like how climatologists peer-review each other's bulls@#t, then reject anything that questions the status quo. You've gotta keep that grant money rolling in from government somehow.
  

  
  These "peer reviews" refuse to even consider simple, alternative theories.
  

  
  Unbeknowenst to most of the public, all data shows CO2 levels LAGGING temperature levels. The only logical, praexologically-sound explanation for this phenomenon is that temperature increases are warmign the oceans, causing the release of carbon deposits.
  

  
  Oceans are the great regulators of the atmosphere, so when the sun gets warmer or colder, atmospheric temperatures stay relatively level.

• Published: May 14, 2007 7:50 AM

• Nick Bradley

• ChrisB,
  

  
  1. These Climatologists don't just take their work to "Wall Street" because there isn't really a demand for it. Firms interested in trading carbon credits, such as Goldman Sachs, so hire climatologists to confirm global warming.
  

  
  2. Market forces don't really work in the scienfitic community due to the amount of government funding and regulation floating around. The presence of tenure and state-funded schools also play a factor.
  

  
  3. The state has greatly expanded the demand for climatologists, just like Astronomy, Physics, etc. The market doesn't really produce a demand for these fields, but the gov't does.
  

  
  Some of their arguments are simply absurd. Here is RealClimate.org's response to the 800-year lag:
  

  
  Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.
  

  
  "The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
  

  
  The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
  

  
  It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also."
  

  
  How absurd! If exogenous temperature increases caused CO2 increases, which caused further temperature increases, which caused further CO2 increases, etc. etc, global climate patterns would move in a linear direction, and the atmosphere would have ended up like Venus millions of years ago.
  

  
  When global warming supporters make ridiculous claims to refute irrefutable evidence, I lose all respect for them.
  

• Published: May 14, 2007 8:36 AM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

• ChrisB,

  You've got the funding issue all wrong. Of course the climate scientists care about global warming. They aren't in it just for the money. Most of the grant money goes to their research anyway. Part of the problem with government funding of science is that it is the dominant source of funding and about the only "respectable" source. Another large part is that it is government bureaucrats (who have an incentive to fund research that will imply a need for more government action) and like-minded scientists are the ones who decide who gets the funding. This creates a process like groupthink, complete with official and unofficial gatekeepers and the ignoring of alternatives.

  Regarding skeptics not publishing in peer-reviewed journals, even top peer-reviewed journals. Nonsense. Go look up some of Richard Lindzen's or Patrick Michaels's work for starters.

  In any event, the issues I raised above call into question the importance of being published in the top journals. If the sort of groupthink that I mentioned above is going on, and I think it is, then it will be more difficult for skeptics to get published in them than advocates because of the built-in bias of the editors and reviewers, not to mention the bias in funding.

• Published: May 14, 2007 10:13 AM

• Dennis

• ChrisB stated: "...as the important point is not what is causing global warming but whether humans need to or can do something about it..."

  Assuming that I am reading this passage correctly, I disagree. If we understand what is causing global warming, would this not provide important knowledge as to how the "problem" may possibly be solved/ameliorated, if in fact it is determined that global warming represents a problem that needs to be solved/ameliorated. Is not one of, if not the, bedrock goal of science to establish cause and affect relationships?
  

• Published: May 14, 2007 11:51 AM

• Mark Humphrey

• As Chris B's comments clearly reveal, the Global Warming crusade is a state-sanctioned religious movement dedicated to the proposition that man's influence on the "eco-system" is wicked. Whatever the cause of warming (or cooling)temperatures "globally", the New Enlightened believe a "new crises" demands more of the same old hegemony: new taxes, new regulations, new state-sactioned profit opportunities, new hurdles for struggling hapless citizens to clamber over and around.

  The New Enlightened bolster their self-confidence, and their status among the naive and uninformed, with gaudy endorsements from "peer review" panels, publication in journals supported by the state, an unending ocean of tax dollar grants, and predicatable praise and applause from news media heavily influenced by considerations of politics, and populated by the unquestioning and the doctrinaire--all "educated" by the State's schools and universities.

  Present a memeber of the New Enlightenment with facts that contradict their religious faith, and the response is fairly predictable: smug condescension toward their critics, indifference concerning inconvenient facts that have not been acknowleged or sanctioned by the New Enlightenment.

• Published: May 14, 2007 2:47 PM

• Robert Brazil

• ChrisB:

  What do you suggest be done about global warming? I would appreciate any specifics you could offer.

• Published: May 14, 2007 2:47 PM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

• ChrisB,

  Michaels at least doesn't disagree that humans are a cause of global warming. Contrary to the spin that many environmentalists put forth, skeptic does not necessarily equal deny anthropogenic global warming.

  And yes, groupthink often includes gatekeepers. I've studied the literature on groupthink. You day that climate scientists often question their assumptions but then you provide some trivial examples. I claimed that many climate scientists, the ones who are zealous environmentalists at least, do not question that man is the cause of global warming and that it will be very very bad. They're absolutely convinced of it. Any research that hints otherwise will have a difficult time of getting funding and then getting published in a good journal. It does happen sometimes, but not as often as it might were the global warming debate not so moralized and politicized. Yes, I'm criticizing many climate scientists for conduct unbecoming of a scientist, for losing their objectivity and scientific skepticism in favor of advocacy for a cause that is often ideological rather than scientific.

• Published: May 14, 2007 3:05 PM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

• Regarding my first paragraph, what I mean to say is that Michaels is skeptical of global warming alarmism. Calling him a skeptic implies that he denies anthropogenic global warming, but he does not. Not all skeptics deny anthropogenic global warming. Many deny that it will be as bad as the alarmists claim. And yet Michaels is often treated as badly as the extreme skeptics who deny anthropogenic global warming outright.

• Published: May 14, 2007 3:08 PM

• Robert Brazil

• ChrisB,

  I believe we are in agreement that 1) ad-hominem attacks don't help anyone's case and 2) people should work hard to get their facts right before posting.

  That said, I don't believe the skeptical position in the global warming debate is one that doesn't trust markets.

  I am not a climatologist but I do know a thing or two about the state. Whenever I hear politicians, pundits and government-funded "experts" sounding the alarm about some looming catastrophe and promising salvation through government action "before it's too late," I become suspicious.

  It's not just environmentalism and that movement's long parade of bogeymen. Think of US foreign policy and its endless narrative of "threats," "weapons of mass destruction" and "mushroom clouds over cities." Think of the welfare state and its warning of thousands "dying in the streets."

  If global warming is caused primarily by human activity, and is mostly bad news for humankind, then government, by its own rationale for existing, HAS TO act. Remember, we are dealing with a state that thinks its mandate includes telling people what ingredients they can cook with, and whether or not they can smoke on their own property, all for the common good. So staving off armageddon is certainly not out of bounds.

  It doesn't matter that its intervention won't work and will probably make the alleged problem worse. When has failure ever deterred government? On the contrary, failure is a boon that brings more money and power.

  I don't know that global warming is even a problem rather than a benefit to mankind. But, assuming it IS a problem, no "market solution" will ever have a chance of being tried so long as the problem is viewed as having been caused by human activity. To believe otherwise is to indulge in fantasy.

  This is why the skeptical position is actually pro-market — because it maintains that the causes of global warming, as well as the outcomes, should be established beyond a reasonable doubt before the market is further shackled, regulated and distorted by government intervention that won't accomplish anything worthwhile.

• Published: May 14, 2007 5:09 PM

• Lev Lafayette

• 
  1. Everett, to my knowledge, is probably one of the best of the skeptics. However the fact that the IPCC doesn't agree with him has clearly affected his claims of the organisation (there are 120 lead scientific authors who disagree with the final report, 2 of those authors reject the conclusions). His minority opinion involves enormous risks if implemented.

  2. Pielke is certainly not a skeptic, so I was a little surpised to see his name here. The author evidently hasn't done their research. He has stated quite explicitly "the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report...". Pielke has on occassion criticised the IPCC for being too conservative in their estimations of the effects of human activities on global warming.

  His son, Roger Pielke Jnr, writes occassionally for the Cato Institute and specialises in the effects on politics on scientific decions making. He has described the Bush administration with regard to science as "ham-handed," "overbearing," and indicative of "hyper-controlling strategies for the management of information"

  3. The "sixty scientists" letter (including, we note, economists, mathematicians, chemists, agronomists and geologists etc) do little more than call for further public debate. It is interesting in its own right that there are only 60 signatories from a worldwide selection.

  4. The Lavoisier Group consists of less than 100 members and a budget of under $10,000. They are not a scientific organisation (none of their personnel or contributors are scientists), but rather a business lobby group that claims that signing the Kyoto Protocol would be too expensive for Australia's mining industry. It was founded by Ray Evans, an executive of Western Mining Corporation, and is backed by senior members of the H.R. Nicholls Society and the Bennelong Society (with whom they share telephone lines and P.O. Boxes).

  Recently they advocated the theories of astrologist Theodore Landscheidt, who believed the world goes through periods of change and instability after certain years and we are currently in one that runs from 2002 - 2011.

  As Professor John Quiggan has put it: "These true believers in fairies at the bottom of the garden should be accorded the credibility they deserve."

  http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin/news/Lavoisier0104.html

  5. Well, this certainly falls into the category of "self-published kooks & cranks". Stephen McIntyre is a former mining executive (this seems common, doesn't it?), although credit where it is due he does have a degree (in pure mathematics). He (along with an economist, McKitrick) led an attack on standard temperature reconstruction for the past 1,000 years with the backing of U.S. Rep. Joe Barton (a political global warming skeptic) who covened a panel on the subject (the Wegman Report). Their conclusions have been rejected by the National Academy and several peer-reviewed papers, with none in support.

  Gerald North, chairman of the National Research Council panel that studied their concerns and produced the report Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, stated the politicians at the Wegman Report "were twisting the scientific information for their own propaganda purposes. The hearing was not an information gathering operation, but rather a spin machine".

  6. A peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal that which is quite normal and (if one goes to the local uni library to check the back issues) has come to the same conclusions as the IPCC.

  7. Antonio Zichichi is quite a famous retired nuclear physicist. Not for his physics, but rather for his entertaining and ideological points of view. Nearly all reviewers not his book Galilei, Divin Uomo sacrifices objectivity to assert that Galileo was a committed Catholic, which led his to denounce his scientific observations (nothing to do with the threat of torture or house arrest). Elio Fabri, professor of Physics at Pisa, Enrico Bellone, professor of the history of science at the University of Milan and Piergiorgio Odifreddi, mathematician at Cornell University and at the University of Turin, have all criticized his essays both with regard to form and with regard to contents (often pointing out errors in the scientific part itself). There is even a book with several contributors of his numerous errors and contradictions.

  In total? 2 industry cranks, 1 good skeptic, 1 who thinks the IPCC is too conservative, 1 call for further public debate, 1 absolutely normal journal and 1 rather famous circus clown who also happens to be a physicist.

• Published: May 14, 2007 6:48 PM

• Dennis

• “The fact of the matter is that a 2004 Science magazine survey of all peer-reviewed scientific studies of climate change showed that 928 papers supported the theory man-made global warming and NOT ONE denied it.”

  I certainly understand that the majority, possibly the large majority, of the climatology professionals support anthropogenic global warming. However, since the survey did not produce one academic paper in over 900 that did not support anthropogenic global warming, especially given the significant uncertainty involved in complex disciplines such as climate modeling and prediction, I am forced to reject any claim to objectivity by the peer-review process regarding this issue.

  This same post mentions Mises and Hayek. Well the fact of the matter regarding their U.S. academic careers was that neither was offered a teaching position in the economics department of a U.S. university. The U.S. economics profession’s treatment of Mises was especially shameful. In fact, I do not believe that Mises, arguably the 20th century’s foremost economist, was ever offered a full-time academic position in Europe or in the U.S. except for a few years in the 1930s at a Swiss school. And in the case of Rothbard, while late in his career he did receive a full professorship at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, this school does not have a doctorate program in economics.

  The lack of employment opportunities available to these exceptional economists speaks greatly to the virtual complete lack of integrity and objectivity of peer review in the social sciences, and I do not believe the situation is materially different in the natural sciences, given that the same institutional influences exist.

  As final comments, the way in which anthropogenic global warming is apparently sweeping the scientific community is extremely similar to the way that Keynesian economics swept the economics profession in the mid-1930s. And the instruction in history that typically ocurrs in secondary schools and colleges is largely consensus- established and peer-reviewed indoctrination.
  

• Published: May 14, 2007 6:51 PM

• Dennis

• Chris,

  You are claiming that a higher degree of peer-review objectivity exists in the natural sciences than in the social sciences. My argument is that given that the same institutional influences exist, there is no material difference. The "harder" data that exist in the natural sciences are still subject to interpretation and manipulation, and as I stated above, significant uncertainty exists in complex endeavors such as climate modeling and prediction. As a result, the economics profession's treatment of Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard is quite pertinent to the peer-review process in the natural sciences. Also, I am sure you are aware of the controversy (some would say fraud) surrounding Mann's "hockey stick" presentation of temperature data.

  It is encouraging that Hayek is one of your "personal heroes". However, I believe he would be quite shaken by the current dominant level of government funding of research not only in the social sciences, but also in the natural sciences.

  And yes, Mises was an employee of Austria, in effect that country's economic advisor (and conscience). Importantly, however, the vast majority of his research in economics was performed on his own time and at his own expense, unlike the vast majority of current research in the social and natural sciences. Also, his advice was generally ignored or ridiculed by the Austrian government; he certainly did not spout the party line.

  And as for the science, while I am not claiming that everything in "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism" is accurate, I believe significant parts are and many of the sources referenced in the book are not marginal.
  

• Published: May 14, 2007 8:17 PM

• Robert Brazil

• ChrisB,

  I haven't seen "climate change denial" here so much as skepticism of the claim that human activity is the principle cause of climate change. This would not be the first time that a majority of "experts" turned out to be wrong about something. The economics establishment of the 20th century has already been mentioned. Just look around you at how such fallacious nonsense as "planning for growth" (i.e. bureaucratic city planning) goes unquestioned by the majority of people.

  Also, even a layman like myself knows the weather man can't accurately predict if it will rain or not three days from now, so the fire-and-brimstone predictions coming out of the global warming establishment rub me more as a way to scare people into leaping before they look rather than the result of cool-headed scientific inquiry.

  As for whether or not there will be a statist response, you yourself admitted it is already happening. Of course it will fail to achieve anything productive for the same reasons central economic planning always fails. But it will survive as a parasite on the productive economy, enlarging the State at the expense of Society (to borrow from Frank Chodorov), and making a lot of people very rich. In that sense it will be a great success. Any attempt to stop the gravy train will meet overwhelming resistance.

  Again, most of us are not climatologists but we know a racket when we see it. You and I are, right now, being taxed to fund the building of a "consensus" that will be used to justify even further acts of plunder directed at us. And the deck is stacked against any challenge to that "consensus" in the same way the deck is stacked against anyone who, forced to pay for public schools and other outlets for government propaganda, advocates liberty and free markets instead of government "solutions."

  Mises was a state employee, yes, but he was exceptionally steadfast in his convictions. Hardly the rule even among libertarians.

• Published: May 14, 2007 8:23 PM

• scott

• "Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.

  Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period."

  ...

  "Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena."

  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

  Also..."The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth. One of the researchers, Lori Fenton, believes variations in radiation and temperature across the surface of the Red Planet are generating strong winds."

  (I am not sure if this article is legitmate, it was a google search done for warming on Mars)
  Also, I don't know how extensive the peer review has been concerning the above 'science'.
  But humankind can't be responsible for the 0.5C increase on mars, can they?

• Published: May 14, 2007 8:56 PM

• averros

• ChrisB - peer review is NOT a mechanism for finding the scientific truth. In fact, it often worked to suppress the politically unapproved (but true) theories (the most glaring example was Lysenkoism in the USSR).

  The only way to get convinced about validity of scientific theories is to follow the facts and logic of the arguments for yourself. If you have to rely on somebody else's (i.e. reviewers's) opinion about some subject then you cannot claim that you have any position on this subject. It is as simple as that.

  The real science does not rely on consensus. It relies on individual judgements, not on submission to the opinions of authorities - or on the opinions of majority. By definition, in any case of any scientific progress the majority of scientis held wrong opinions.

  The peer reviews are anti-scientific; they are instruments of scientism - i.e. the irrational belief in the superhuman intellectual acumen of experts.

• Published: May 15, 2007 12:03 AM

• Eduardo

• regarding peer review, it is very telling to look back in history. Almost every theory, discovery or breakthru arised against its current consensus, against what can be named peer reviewed/approved.
  Just think of Galileo, Columbus, Einstein, Hawkings, etc.
  

• Published: May 15, 2007 7:36 AM

• alt1985

• One, mainstream, peer reviewed, scientific journals are headed by the scientists that adhere to the status quo. The status quo can be the so-called "consensus" on global warming or the "consensus" on evolution for that matter. I know from having a debate recently with a friend regarding evolution versus creationism that there are peer-reviewed scientific journals among scientists that they have had to FORM THEMSELVES, because they cannot get their papers that present scientific, strong arguments for creationism in mainstream, peer reviewed scientific journals. It is no different with global warming. Many people do not like to have their ideas questioned, and therefore, you can forget the big-shots at the major scientific journals letting someone seriously challenge them to a point that their theory would be proven wrong.

  I will agree with ChrisB that the free market can solve any problems with global warming if it was determined that it is man made (which is far from a consensus). However, most people that agree with man-made global warming theory do NOT believe that it should be left up to the free market. To many of these people, business is the evil, and the government must control business and set regulations in order to reign in global warming. They are, in fact, anti-capitalist, and are using the global warming issue to promote their anti-capitalist agenda and take away peoples' freedoms. Oh, yeah, those light bulbs they want people to buy...guess what? They have a toxic level of Mercury in them that if you break them, you have to call an environmental clean up agency and spend 2000 dollars just to get the room fixed. It is a true story. It has 5 times the level of Mercury that is considered safe. Are these people really so much anti-man and anti-progress and anti-freedom that they would make us buy risky light bulbs that frankly make a room look like a factory when you turn them on? It doesn't take much to drop a light bulb and break it! I will keep my regular light bulbs, thank you very much.

  Yesterday, I read an article that Tony Blair is close to convincing Bush to agree with a climate proposal that will be presented at the G8 Summit that would set a target for an idea TEMPERATURE. I have never seen so much egoism in my life to believe that humans can control the world's temperature and actually set a target. The weather is not under human control. It is under God's control, and the very fact that there are people on this planet that believe they can set an ideal temperature "target" is very scary. These same people believe the government is the solution. It reminds me very much of Bastiat's declaration in "The Law" that socialists believe they are God.

• Published: May 15, 2007 6:29 PM

• Walt D.

• Averros:
  
  "The only way to get convinced about validity of scientific theories is to follow the facts and logic of the arguments for yourself."
  
  You hit the nail right on the head.
  
  One thing I notice is that a lot of the opponents are older and well established, or retired (as is the case with me.) That means that we are not subject to political pressure. However, more importantly, we obtained our graduate degrees before computers came along. We used to have to work out order of magnitude estimates using hand calculations or slide rules. Thus, one of the skills of a good scientist was the ability to make back of an envelope calculations to see whether something was feasible or not. It is my contention that much of the "evidence" for man made global warming can be refuted without using a calculator!
  
  The assumption that the energy arriving at the Earth's surface from the Sun is constant is false.
  
  The assumption that sunspots can be ignored is false.
  
  The assumption that cloud cover can be ignored is false.
  
  The notion that the ocean can heat up quickly from sunlight is false.
  
  The variation in the solar energy arriving at the Earth's surface due to a non-circular orbit is considerble.
  
  It takes very little effort to do these calculations.

• Published: May 15, 2007 8:30 PM

• alt1985

• Using hand calculations would be a huge feat for many people today. Most college students do not know how to do long division without a calculator. Maybe this explains the decline of scientific thought in America. We have a public school system that tells kids they won't teach them long division because it "stifles their creativity" (true story).

• Published: May 16, 2007 10:24 AM

• Philemon
• I envy some people's naivety with regard to peer review.

  The climate models are in part economic models as well, as they extrapolate “economic activities” which they label as productive of “man-made” CO2.

  (Economic models are not well regarded by any economists, as they have never been capable of any accurate replication of economic performance let alone prediction. Austrian economists have provided explanations of why such models do not and cannot work.)

  The same models, as has been pointed out, do not and, in principle, cannot predict changes in technology.

  The models, so far as I know, do not attempt to predict volcanic activity, which has significant effects on climate.

  The models suffer from GIGO. If any of the relevant data is fudged, if any relevant variables are omitted, if formulas based on fallacious reasoning are incorporated, if formulas are adjusted ad hoc to produce “better” results, all of which are likely, the results the models produce are meaningless.

  Very little CO2 over geological history has been sequestered in fossil fuel. The vast majority of that sequestered at the time which was not recycled into the atmosphere is in the process of mineralization. The amount that people can contribute to CO2 levels by burning the stuff is minute relative to the other sources of greenhouse gases.

  All of which suggest something other than excitement over new scientific discoveries is contributing to the hype surrounding the issue.

  The global warming hype is eerily similar to the hype regarding the establishment of a Central Bank in the US. The claim that all reputable scientists agree on it (slightly out of context but “We’re all Keynesians now”) suggests that the “business partnership with government” is actively involved in this matter as well. A recent paper at the American Philosophical Society, an affiliate of the pro-military Society of the Cincinnati, advanced the argument that, since it is agreed that people are changing the climate anyway, Big Science should be funded by someone or another to explore ways of “correcting” the climate. What the **** are they up to? (By they, I mean the parties who are directing tax payer and philanthropic money into climate change “research”.)
  

• Published: May 16, 2007 7:46 PM

• John Baltutis

• With respect to peer review, I direct your attention to Peer Review, Publication In Top Journals, Scientific Consensus, And So Forth and New Ideas in Science.

• Published: May 17, 2007 8:25 PM

• John Baltutis

• With respect to peer review, I direct your attention to Peer Review, Publication In Top Journals, Scientific Consensus, And So Forth and New Ideas in Science.

• Published: May 17, 2007 8:25 PM

• John Baltutis

• Sorry for the double-post, got hung up on a security code message.

• Published: May 17, 2007 8:31 PM

• john Baltutis

• Here're two quotes WRT climate models from The Future of Everything: the Science of Prediction [originally entitled Apollo’s Arrow: The Science of Prediction and the Future of Everything] by David Orrell, mathematician, 2007:

  "Einstein’s theory of relativity was accepted not because a committee agreed that it was a very sensible model, but because its predictions, most of which were highly counterintuitive, could be experimentally verified. Modern GCMs [global climate models] have no such objective claim to validity, because they cannot predict the weather over any relevant time scale. Many of their parameters are invented and adjusted to approximate past climate patterns. Even if this is done using mathematical procedures, the process is no less subjective because the goals and assumptions are those of the model builders. Their projections into the future—especially when combined with the output of economic models—are therefore a kind of fiction. The problem with the models is not that they are subjective or objective—there is nothing wrong with a good story, or an informed and honestly argued opinion. It is that they (GCMs) are couched in the language of mathematics and probabilities; subjectivity masquerading as objectivity. Like the Wizard of Oz, they are a bit of a sham."

  “The track record of any kind of long-distance prediction is really bad, but everyone’s still really interested in it. It’s sort of a way of picturing the future. But we can’t make long-term predictions of the economy, and we can’t make long-term predictions of the climate. Models will cheerfully boil away all the water in the oceans or cover the world in ice, even with pre-industrial levels of CO2 When models about the future climate are in agreement, it says more about the self-regulating group psychology of the modelling community than it does about global warming and the economy.”

• Published: May 17, 2007 8:36 PM

• TokyoTom

• averros and Walt D.:

  I congratulation you on successfully innoculating your worldviews from contamination by scientific views that would otherwise create too much cognitive dissonance.

  No, the world is NOT warming, the Arctic and temperate/tropic zone glaciers are NOT melting, seasons and planting zones are NOT shifting, and there is NOTHING to suggest that human activities have anything to do with what isn't happening anyway (CO2 and methane are NOT greenhouse gases, human activities - agriculture and soot emissions - do NOT create albedo changes).

  Moreover, the basic Austrian insight - that conflicts over open-access resources occur when there are no clear or effective property rights that encourage protection of/investments in such resources and that enable market transactions in such resources - does NOT apply to public goods like the global atmosphere, or to unregulated ocean fisheries. These resources are NOT being damaged, or if they are, it has NOTHING to do with the lack of effective property rights.

  See NO PROBLEM at all, at least one that can't be resolved by covering one's eyes and ears! Shame on all of those Lysenkos out there, trying to stop scientific progress or trying to advance a nefarious agenda of socialism.

  Regards,

  TT

  PS: They use to say that scientific progress is made one death at a time, as that was they only way that the old guard would stop reacting to new insights. But now we know that that is wrong - at least in the case of climate change - and that all new insights are wrong, the young Turks are stifling all dissent, and the old guard is the one that is bravely forging a new path in clarifying that man's technological prowess and extensive industrialization and economic activities are fundamentally incapable of exerting any influence on endlessly abundant natural resources/public goods.

• Published: May 17, 2007 11:03 PM

• TokyoTom

• alt1985:

  You say:
  "I have never seen so much egoism in my life to believe that humans can control the world's temperature and actually set a target. The weather is not under human control. It is under God's control, and the very fact that there are people on this planet that believe they can set an ideal temperature "target" is very scary. These same people believe the government is the solution."

  Sorry, I see I should have addressed my last post to you as well.

  You may have failed to notice that there is a strong current in present Austrian thinking about climate change that very much holds that "government is the solution". Do you know who made the following remarks?

  "In contrast to the policy of the environmentalists, there are rational ways of cooling the earth if that is what should actually be necessary, ways that would take advantage of the vast energy base of the modern world ...."

  "[T]here is a case for considering the possible detonation, on uninhabited land north of 70° latitude, say, of a limited number of hydrogen bombs. ... The effect would be to maintain the frigid climate of the region and to prevent the further melting of its ice or, if necessary, to increase the amount of its ice. Moreover, the process could be conducted starting on a relatively small scale, and then proceed slowly. This would allow essential empirical observations to be made and also allow the process to be stopped at any time before it went too far."

  "This is certainly something that should be seriously considered by everyone who is concerned with global warming and who also desires to preserve modern industrial civilization and retain and increase its amenities. If there really is any possibility of global warming so great as to cause major disturbances, this kind of solution should be studied and perfected. Atomic testing should be resumed for the purpose of empirically testing its feasibility."

  "If there is any remnant of the left of an earlier era, which still respected science and technology, and championed industrial civilization, it might be expected to offer additional possible solutions for excessive global warming, probably solutions of a kind requiring grandiose construction projects."

  Give up on who is this Austrian stalwart, who thinks that not only man may very well be influencing the climate, but that the answer may lie in coercive government action? The answer is here: http://blog.mises.org/archives/006389.asp

• Published: May 17, 2007 11:15 PM

• TLWP Sam

• But T.T. how on earth is anyone supposed to private the atmosphere and oceans? The fixed nature of land has meant that it has been privatised a long long time ago (well for societies that says that land should be privatised anyway). Similarly how on earth is someone going to own and enforce critters that are highly nomadic such as wild fish and birds? I'm sure plenty of people would love to claim ownership of a piece of sea and air if it all weren't so darn amorphous.

• Published: May 17, 2007 11:57 PM

• TokyoTom

• TLWP Sam:

  You ask how on earth is anyone supposed to private the atmosphere and oceans? … Similarly how on earth is someone going to own and enforce critters that are highly nomadic such as wild fish and birds?

  Great questions, and intellectually much more challenging and honest than simply denying there is any problem or hostilely questioning the motives of those who proclaim them.

  I think that the following provide useful approaches:

  - Bruce Yandle, The Commons: Tragedy or Triumph? http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4064

  - Terry Anderson and J. Bishop Grewell, PROPERTY RIGHTS SOLUTIONS FOR THE GLOBAL COMMONS: BOTTOM-UP OR TOP-DOWN?, http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?10+Duke+Envtl.+L.+&+Pol'y+F.+73

  - Elinor Ostrom et al., Revisiting the Commons:
  Local Lessons, Global Challenges, http://conservationcommons.org/media/document/docu-wyycyz.pdf

  - Bruce Yandle, GRASPING FOR THE HEAVENS:
  3-D PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE GLOBAL COMMONS, http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?10+Duke+Envtl.+L.+&+Pol'y+F.+13

  - Ronald Bailey, Pick Your Poissons:
  Economic and ecological diversity for fisheries, http://www.reason.com/news/show/36839.html

  Regards,

  TT

• Published: May 18, 2007 4:34 AM

• Francisco Torres

• No, the world is NOT warming, the Arctic and temperate/tropic zone glaciers are NOT melting, seasons and planting zones are NOT shifting, and there is NOTHING to suggest that human activities have anything to do with what isn't happening anyway

  The fallacy goes like this:

  A Earth is getting warmer
  B Man is industrialized, so
  B is causing A! Ta-da!

  Correlation is NOT causation.

  And YES, there is nothing to suggest humans are the culprits. Climate is driven by the Sun, and by far, water vapour is the most powerful of greenhouse gasses. Maybe we should buy exhalation credits, to reduce man-made water vapour...

  See comments like this (from realclimate.org):
  The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming [of the 5000 year span]. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

  Basically, the realclimate.org commentator seems to think that the first cause for the temperature rise after the last Ice Age somehow magically dissapears once CO2 enters the picture, standing the concept of hysteresis on its head. I do not think this i science, at all, but an exercise in straw-grasping.

• Published: May 19, 2007 1:16 PM

• Digital

• You may have failed to notice that there is a strong current. Do you know who made the following remarks?

• Published: September 14, 2007 11:32 AM