Comments (31)

• Trollpatrol

• Hi, Chris, troll here often?

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

• Published: May 14, 2007 7:43 PM

• jeffrey

• ChrisB, so here is a good chance to present your market-based solution in short form. First, what is the problem you are seeking to solve? Second, is this problem a market failure? Third, if it is a market failure, why do you expect the market to solve it, or does your term market-based really mean "government-based?"
  

• Published: May 14, 2007 9:12 PM

• Bruce Koerber

• Dear Joseph Salerno,

  If there is any interest in the divine economy theory I would be glad to make a presentation at the Austrian Scholars Conference.

  With warm regards,
  Bruce Koerber

• Published: May 14, 2007 9:18 PM

• Rob Harmer

• One key aspect to be considered in terms of Intellectual Property issues for organizations relates to the impact of Google and its push into the “collaboration space” marketplace.

  Our feature article at http://www.pcprofile.com/Office_Collaboration.pdf outlines significant IP risks if not used wisely and judiciously, especially with Google pushing onto a Powerpoint type look-a-like soon..

  The key issue to be faced, that is being overlooked by all and sundry, is the one relating to Intellectual Property protection with using Google Apps.

  With Google Apps you have NO RIGHTS to the content (your IP) once posted via the Apps for collaboration over the web. Read the Google fine print!
  
  The above article outlines the fine print in the Google Apps terms and conditions covering the “content” that might alarm those businesses who think about engaging this "free solution".

  The “killer aspect” may well be applied to the IT Manager’s career who initiated the apps in the organisation without using appropriate risk mitigation measures to ensure users don’t give away your IP. The risks are a lot higher than many would believe.
  

• Published: May 15, 2007 6:48 AM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

• ChrisB,

  That "not even a hint of doubt" business is one of my main problems with climate "scientists"/environmental activists. It's not very scientific to not have even a hint of doubt about something.

  As I've written elsewhere: "When scientists, no matter how distinguished or elderly, rally around an idea with great fervor and emotion, announce a crisis of potentially catastrophic proportions is imminent, call for drastic and coercive action now, and denounce skeptics as ignorant laymen, partisan hacks, or enemies of science - they probably haven't looked in the mirror in a long time."

  You're not doing your position any favors by taking such a blatantly unscientific stance on it. Maybe if climate science were well over 100 years old with just as many years of observations confirming their hypotheses, maybe then they could reduce their scientific skepticism to just a hint of doubt. But when empirical sciences are concerned, having absolutely no hint of doubt just isn't scientific...ever. In summary, it is reasonable to doubt AGW, although it may not be very popular or as firm a position. It is even more reasonable to doubt GW alarmism and, I daresay, at this point it is more reasonable to be a skeptic of alarmism than to be an alarmist. This is of course not to say that there aren't environmental issues that need addressing. Rather, it is to say that things probably aren't as bad as they are being made out to be by the alarmists.

• Published: May 15, 2007 9:59 AM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

• ChrisB,

  I already dealt with that nonsense about scientists being either interested in scientific truth or money, and if the latter they could just go to Wall Street. Hogwash. How quickly we forget. It's a false alternative. For one thing, the money they get from the government is primarily for research, not for personal income. The main point is, the third alternative is that they are interested in finding greater support for their ideas on global warming. They aren't interested in the truth so much as in the "truth" as they see it on global warming. You see, many of them already think the know the truth about global warming; they just need to find the evidence and figure out some of the details. Not all climate scientists are like this, of course, but many of them are...the ones who appear in the news as activists and edit Wikipedia global warming articles especially.

  You're not going to win any converts here with that exclusionary attitude on global warming, the "either you buy into the hype or you're not being reasonable" attitude.

  There are real problems with peer review. Much worse problems with most "respectable" funding coming from the government. And problems with how moralized and politicized the global warming debate has become.

• Published: May 15, 2007 10:10 AM

• TLWP Sam

• Is it then true that the scientific community is not populated by scientists but whitecoat-wearing public stunt, government fundraising propagandists?

  btw:

  Here's a link to an article by a professor looking at both sides of the global warming debates. Such as man-made vs natural CO2, global warming vs global cooling, weather prediction vs climate prediction, reseach and conspiracies, etc.

  Might inject a bit of new bits to the debate:

  http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm.HTM
  

• Published: May 15, 2007 10:24 AM

• jeffrey

• ChrisB, how I wish that all the global-warming nuts would be happy with your idea: "stand on the sidelines and try to foster the mechanisms that will spontaneously solve the problem."

  Sadly, this is NOT what the nuts want. The GW idea is much like Keynesianism: a policy in search of a theory.
  

• Published: May 15, 2007 10:38 AM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

• ChrisB,

  I dealt with your putting words in mouth in the other thread, but I will do it again here. I never said I reject climate science and I never said I was an anti-AGW skeptic. I also briefly discussed what is different about climate science (and some other highly moralized and politicized sciences like the research on second-hand tobacco smoke): they have a more direct impact on human lives than natural sciences like, say physics. The debate over global warming is much more prone to moralizing and politicizing than the old debate over whether pulsars are rotating neutron stars. GW has also been adopted as one of the primary bugbears of the left. If you can't see these things, I don't know what to say.

  Also, I'm not sure you're availing yourself of all of the peer-reviewed literature. There is peer reviewed literature out there (I've given you a link to some reviews of some of it) that raises doubt about the alarmism, and in some cases even about AGW.

  Additionally, I'm not sure you have a healthy skepticism of the peer-reviewed literature of a highly moralized and politicized science. Note that "a healthy skepticism" does not mean "ideological opposition to" or even "outright denial of". It just means: take it with a grain of salt, don't take it as sufficient proof of the need for drastic and coercive action.

  There are other problems with a good bit of the peer-reviewed literature: issues with computer climate models (unrealistic assumptions, they don't reflect reality well, etc.), not enough observations to support the claims we are hearing in the media (ocean temperature for example), and others.

  Also, you keep saying that you are only talking about the peer-reviewed literature, but we are also concerned with the hype in the media and by politicians. Not enough scientists are denouncing the overblown hype. Why is that?

• Published: May 15, 2007 11:08 AM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

• ChrisB,

  Agreed on the temporary cease-fire.

  Just a few parting shots (pardon the pun):

  Unlike most environmentalists you won't see me dismissing the anti-AGW skeptics out of hand. Given the nature of empirical science, they may yet be proven right. At least their position has the advantage of not encouraging statist environmental policies.

  The alarmists on the other hand, in my experience, generally come off as having a blatant ideological bias. Their position almost invariably comes along with calls for statist policy "fixes." I don't think the science supports the hysteria I keep hearing - from actors, musicians, politicians, pundits, and scientists alike - and I certainly don't buy into the statist "solutions" proposed.

  From what I know of the science and given my distrust of the ideological component evident in many of the activists, I tend to align myself with the mainstream skeptics like Michaels who accept AGW but don't think it will be all that bad and may even be beneficial in many cases. I suppose I'm rather agnostic on the science. I'm not at all agnostic on the political-economic solutions.

• Published: May 15, 2007 11:37 AM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

• Suggestions for nuanced articles on global warming by Austrians:

  1) For Austrians who accept that the earth's climate is warming but deny that the cause is anthropogenic: Write about how free markets can better deal with the consequences and why statist policies are a bad idea. You can point that whether or not humans are causing global warming, here is what we can morally do about it.

  2) For Austrians who accept AGW (whether they are skeptical of the alarmism or not): In addition to #1, you can offer free market solutions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, criticize statist "solutions", and point out how an unhampered market will solve the problem faster than the state could by leading to greater prosperity, faster capital accumulation, and innovation of cleaner technology, thus making "going green" more economically attractive to more people faster.

• Published: May 15, 2007 12:27 PM

• RogerM

• The GW alarmists are focusing on transportation as the main cause of greenhouse gasses, but they're actually a minor player. Housing contributes the most to greenhouse gasses because of the need for heating and cooling them. As Americans have bought increasingly larger houses, utilities have had to build ever larger generating plants that burn oil, coal, and natural gas. I'll know environmentalists are serious about GW when I see them selling their 10,000 square foot homes and moving into studio apartments. Until then, I can't take them seriously.

• Published: May 15, 2007 12:38 PM

• David White

• Geoffrey,

  In any event, what has to be overcome is what inventor/entrepreneur/futurist Ray Kurzweil calls the "intuitive linear" view:

  "An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense 'intuitive linear' view. So we won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century -- it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate). The 'returns,' such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There's even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth."

  http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1

  Thus, in the event that AGW is a reality, the market stands to resolve the issue as a matter of course:

  "We are awash in energy (10,000 times more than required to meet all our needs falls on Earth), but we are not very good at capturing it. That will change with the full nanotechnology-based assembly of macro objects at the nano scale, controlled by massively parallel information processes, which will be feasible within twenty years. Even though our energy needs are projected to triple within that time, we'll capture that .0003 of the sunlight needed to meet our energy needs with no use of fossil fuels, using extremely inexpensive, highly efficient, lightweight, nano-engineered solar panels, and we'll store the energy in highly distributed (and therefore safe) nanotechnology-based fuel cells. Solar power is now providing 1 part in 1,000 of our needs, but that percentage is doubling every two years, which means multiplying by 1,000 in twenty years. Almost all the discussions I've seen about energy and its consequences, such as global warming, fail to consider the ability of future nanotechnology-based solutions to solve this problem."

  http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0692.html

  Bottom line: Imagining that the world a hundred years from now will be anything like today's -- with AGW having brought on a global catastrophe -- is simply to reject what is happening right before our very eyes every single day.

• Published: May 15, 2007 12:48 PM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

• David,

  Thanks for that. What you point out is one of the many problems with computer climate models. They typically assume business as usual 100 years from now, if not business-as-worse-than-usual, in terms of GHG emissions, tech level, and so forth. This is an aspect of climate science that economists can actually challenge directly without straying outside of their expertise.

• Published: May 15, 2007 12:57 PM

• rtr

• The Earth's magnetic field flips in cycles from south to north, to north to south. We are overdue for a flip. As the field flips, the field weakens dramatically. Seems to me, that as the magnetic field weakens, the earth cooks hotter.

  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/about.html

  "But the warning signs of a declining field are subtler—though they are evident in every clay dish that was ever fired. During high-temperature baking, iron minerals in clay record the exact state of Earth's magnetic field at that precise moment. By examining pots from prehistory to modern times, geologist John Shaw of the University of Liverpool in England has discovered just how dramatically the field has changed. "When we plot the results from the ceramics," he notes, "we see a rapid fall as we come toward the present day. The rate of change is higher over the last 300 years than it has been for any time in the past 5,000 years. It's going from a strong field down to a weak field, and it's doing so very quickly."

  At the present rate, Earth's magnetic field could be gone within a few centuries, exposing the planet to the relentless blast of charged particles from space with unpredictable consequences for the atmosphere and life. Other possibilities: the field could stop weakening and begin to strengthen, or it could weaken to the point that it suddenly flips polarity—that is, compasses begin to point to the South Magnetic Pole.

  An even older record of Earth's fluctuating field than Shaw refers to shows a more complicated picture. Ancient lava flows from the Hawaiian Islands reveal both the strength of the field when the lava cooled and its orientation—the direction of magnetic north and south. "When we go back about 700,000 years," says geologist Mike Fuller of the University of Hawaii, "we find an incredible phenomenon. Suddenly the rocks are magnetized backwards. Instead of them being magnetized to the north like today's field, they are magnetized to the south."

  Such a reversal of polarity seems to happen every 250,000 years on average, making us long overdue for another swap between the north and south magnetic poles."

  Now, how much does the average temperature drop between day and night? How much does temperature change with the seasons, a slight percentage tilt of the earth? How much does the temperature vary from the equator to the poles, on a percentage distance basis to the sun?

  Global warming fanatic "scientists" aren't just full of crap, they are *massively* full of crap. The pretend they know more than they do. The same errors which result from statistical models in economics also result from statistical models in climatology. When they can answer simple baby step questions, like the three I just asked in the paragraph above, then and only then will it be worth even beginning to take what they say with a grain of salt. Their "science" is politicized on a mass hysteria scale, not seen since Keynesianism.

  In the meantime, they know *jack squat* about solar influences, no matter what kind of clown suits they wear to pretend they are qualified to make us laugh.

• Published: May 15, 2007 2:14 PM

• Scott D

• Good suggestions for discussion, Geoffrey, and I agree that that there are many different levels of skeptic, from outright deniers of any warming whatsoever, to those who believe that AGW is a serious problem but caution against exaggerating the case.

  I think that skeptics are valuable, both as a hedge against the fact that the majority is sometimes wrong, and as a means of pointing out more minor flaws, even if the truth does largely lie with the majority. Some skeptics can and should be dismissed. Others we need to listen to and consider their positions carefully.

  One thing I can agree with ChrisB on is the need for discussing real market solutions to AGW, and to expose statist measures disguised under the apellation of "free-market". Also, the need to continue the fight to correct fallacies about economics. The reason is demonstrated quite nicely by this fellow, Steven Dutch, that TWLP Sam linked:

  "So we should sign the Kyoto Accords. As an intrinsic part of the plan, we enact measures to help business deal with the costs and protect workers from job loss."

  I expect that you are NOT nodding your head in agreement at this point. There was some decent commentary on this page, but this comment belies a strong faith in the state coupled with a serious lack of knowledge in economics, also evidenced elsewhere in the same page. This blind faith is the other half of the noxious concoction that we got when we add in alarmists' predictions of 20-foot sea level rises.

  I think that the problem of state action being the necessary answer to AGW is largely one of asking the proper questions. How do you frame the question such that a statist policy is not implied? If people are asking, "How do we limit carbon dioxide emissions?" they have already implied coercive action in their question.

  By contrast, no one ever asked, "How can we (society) create a worldwide communications system for sharing data?" Instead, the internet came about slowly, in the course of countless minor innovations, in response to the desires of users. No one ever knew that they needed or wanted the internet until the means to make it a reality began to materialize.

  Rather, I think that questions like, "How can I develop an energy technology that will compete with fossil fuels?", the questions that an entrepreneur will ask, will lead to the answers that will both raise ever more people out of poverty, and put a stop to the causes of AGW--if indeed the consensus view is correct.

• Published: May 15, 2007 3:00 PM

• rtr

• Knowledge, in so far as it exists, is absolutely known. If any one disagrees they necessarily declare that which they say is gibberish to be ignored. That said, I cite solar influences, as a key missing variable in climatological studies. I know, I looked. The representation of solar variables in the global warming debate seems about 1 in 100 of the studies done.

  Solar influences are a great unknown, yet "climatologists", who are about as credible a field as cosmetologists, proceed with models excluding something which massively changes temperature, EVERY SINGLE 24 HOUR REVOLUTION OF THE EARTH, from night to day! That's like measuring the effect a single individual has blowing hot air in the middle of a hurricaine. I derive this from looking at the size of the sun, versus the size of the earth, of looking at the energy generated by the sun versus the energy generated by human activity. And that is *far* from the only pertinent variable lacking in the models, which are about as sophisticated as 17th century gadgets seem today.

  If they know something, they can prove that something so that average lay people can understand it. It's a ridiculous claim that it takes an "expert" to understand something. If they really understand it, they can explain it. And they can address criticisms the likes of which I have just made. Climatology is set up for a massive disaccreditation within the next decade. But thats ok, social workers (social work "scientists") need a less dull knife in the drawer to keep them company.

  I don't especially espouse John Shaw and Mike Fuller, I just cite as an example of missing key variables, and key variables of which far too little is known, which make those pretending to claim climatological conclusions look like they are dressed up in clown suit credentials.

  The solution is simple. Market based and discovered profitable uses of "greenhouse gas" emissions. When it's valuable to pay people to stick sharper image esque ionic air breeze collectors up peoples' automobile tail pipes and down peoples' chimneys and smokestacks, the "problem" will be completely solved. That is a job for an entrepreneur, not a climatologist, nor the state. Of course patents and copyrights will hinder this process and make the process of technological and economic technological innovation more expensive and take longer to occur. Thus, it is imperative we ACT NOW!! to remove this threat by initiating a world-wide removal of all copyright and patent monopoly protectionism!

• Published: May 15, 2007 3:33 PM

• rtr

• ChrisB: "rtr: Cosmetologists? What on earth have you got against beauticians? I think what you were trying to write was "cosmologists." But cosmology is one of the most respected fields in science (Stephen Hawking is a cosmologist), so that would be an odd thing to do. So probably what you meant was "astrologists.""

  That's why i *meant* cosmetologists, not cosmologists, for exactly the reasons you state. Sure, "astrologists" would be anologous to "climatologists" as well.

  ChrisB: "Also, I don't understand how you could think that climate scientists don't take the "solar influences" into consideration. Where do you think the warming comes from in the first place? It looks like you might think that it comes from human activity (you compare the amount of energy generated by the sun with the amount of energy generated by human activity). If that is what you believe, then I think you're very confused indeed, as it is not the energy produced by humans that climate scientists argue is causing global warming, but the CO2 we produce (mainly--but not necessarily--in the course of generating energy)."

  The amount of CO2 produced by humans is a speck on the sun. That's the point I was making.

  ChrisB: "If you mean variations in the amount of energy that reaches earth from the sun, well then reducing CO2 emissions is still important, as CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could mitigate the effects of an increased amount of energy reaching us from the sun."

  This is how exactly I mean "climatologists" are great fools with clown suit credentials. The first thing these people should do is draw a scale model of the sun versus the earth. It's a matter of a simple percentage delineation of heating energy generated by:

  A. The Sun
  B. The Earth (volcanos etc.)
  C. C02 emissions generated by human activity

  As economics is encroaching into multiple other fields, I see no reason why climatology is not in line for a massive economic intellectual spanking. The sun "burping" may have climate effects far greater than human CO2 generation activity. We don't know. But the obvliviousness mainstream "credentialed" climatologist scientists have exhibited regarding A. and B. is laughable. They are literally blinded to perspective in their press announcements.

  ChrisB: "You sound very angry. But since the scenarios you are putting forward require at least as drastic action as more traditional global-warming scenarios seem to require and could even act as an excuse for extremely drastic government action beyond what is currently on the table, I don't really understand what you're so upset about."

  Angry, no. Just rolling along having fun, mining Nobel Prize quality insights and demonstrations along the journey.

  Drastic action?!?!? Like perhaps cutting off the ice of the polar caps and sending it to the sun to cool the sun? Or putting some giant sun glasses in orbit around the earth? This is the laughable seriousness climatologists take their massive full of crap research with. Other scientific disciplines will use climatology as a model textbook case of political credibility failure, much as a business course might look at a casebook study of the time warner-aol merger or analyze the collapse of enron.

  ChrisB: "You complain that about global-warming mass hysteria, but you are being hysterical yourself, as well as extremely alarmist in your suggestion that the Earth will soon lose its magnetic field (which would be a death sentence for humans and most--maybe all--other life forms on the planet)."

  I could go on about meteorites and the theory of the extinction of the dinosaurs too? But I don't think we'll be seeing credible climate change exhibits in planetariums anytime soon. Watch. I'm predicting climatology will be humiliated as a field from the dire global warming predictions they have made, and there will be a sizeable political backlash in the same way when a wall street "scandal" occurs. At best, hypocritical mass polluters like Al Gore won't financially profit tradeable "emissions caps". It isn't even just "hysteria", it's deliberate belligerent intellectual dishonesty which has run amok through a "scientific" field.

• Published: May 15, 2007 4:53 PM

• David White

• rtr,

  Vis-a-vis my post above, I think the IP issue will resolve itself over time, as the exponential nature of technological advance renders IP increasingly useless to inventors and entrepreneurs -- i.e., they'll prosper as best they can in their moment in the sun, with the understanding that those moments will be of increasingly short duration.

• Published: May 15, 2007 5:18 PM

• rtr

• ChrisB: "rtr, as fervently as you believe that you know what you're talking about, believe me, you don't. CO2 does not generate "heating energy." CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps energy from the sun."

  CO2 are a *compenent variable* responsible, or not responsible (cause and effect), for X% of total heat energy on the Planet = E Earth.

  Now I'm just going to take a random stab and guess solar plus terrestrial effects account for 95% of the total heat effect on the earth, and CO2 caused specifically by human activity less than 1%. This is the perspective which is completely lacking in mainstream "scientific" climatology, which of course makes me the de facto reigning head expert of the field. If you compare changing a variable which contributes less than 1% to the total effect versus other variables which contribute over 95% to the total effect, you'll get exactly my point. Climatologists are fools, worthy of aspersions.

  ChrisB: "If you don't understand that, then your views on climate science are necessarily irrelevant."

  Exactly, which is why climatologists are wearing clown suit credentials.

• Published: May 15, 2007 5:20 PM

• Kristian Joensen

• "At the present rate"

  Isn't that the central assumption in the entire Global Warming debate, no matter what theory you accept ?

  ChrisB, you mentioned earlier that climate scientists question their assumptions all the time, is that assumption ever questioned ?

• Published: May 15, 2007 6:00 PM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

• If you read RealClimate, be sure to balance it with a healthy dose of World Climate Report.

  The guys at RealClimate seem to me to be fairly biased, as much activists as scientists, if not more so. They praise Gore's Inconvenient Truth and fail to point out its many inaccuracies and exaggerations. They aren't above hyping the issue, if they even see it as hyping. One of the contributors, William Connolley, is one of the biased Wikipedia editors I have encountered. Connolley is a climate modeler.

  WCR on the other hand offers the mainstream skeptic viewpoint that I mentioned either in this thread or another one. Michaels, the chief editor, is a climate scientist and a senior fellow at Cato. The other two contributors are trained climate scientists as well I believe.

• Published: May 15, 2007 9:24 PM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

• ::sigh:: Here we go again.

  I did not make up "mainstream skeptic." Someone else did. It is not meaningless. And I spelled out what I meant by both it and alarmism.

  Moreover, it is neither confused nor dishonest. There actually exist climate scientists and others who accept anthropogenic global warming (albeit without being ideologically committed to it as many activists seem to be) but are skeptical of the many and vocal claims that global warming is proceeding at an alarming rate and will have catastrophic or at least extremely bad consequences on net. These claims I have dubbed alarmist. Are they not in your view? Do you have a more appropriate word for it?

  And as I have repeatedly pointed out, the environmental activists have used their rhetorical skills to label all critics skeptics, so I'm not the one who first started calling people like Michaels skeptics. I'm merely clarifying that they are not skeptical of AGW. Please do suggest an alternative but still pithy label for them if you have one. I know...the simple addition of a few words, if I wanted to be absolutely precise, would enable the label to completely avoid your tedious, nitpicking objection: they accept AGW but are skeptical of what they see as global warming alarmism. Is that satisfactory? I have used this phrase elsewhere (like Wikipedia). This is what mainstream skeptic means. It is quite clearly both meaningful and necessary, and not least bit dishonest or confused.

  As you apparently haven't noticed despite repeated attempts by myself to explain it to you, it is precisely the "commonly understood" notion of skepticism as used in the global warming debate that I am combating. As it stands, it is a cheap rhetorical trick cleverly employed by activists to discredit all critics. Since they insist on calling Michaels and others like him skeptics, I will insist on differentiating between different types of skeptics.

  I'm tired of hearing your accusations of confusion and dishonesty and your harping about straw man arguments. You have consistently misinterpreted or intentionally misrepresented most of what I have written in response to you. I could accuse you of the same confusion, dishonesty and constructing of straw man arguments (like trying to focus exclusively on AGW skeptics) quite easily. For example, you claim that I wrote "confirm skepticism" but I wrote something more along the lines of, if not exactly, "raise doubts about" and I applied the phrase to separately to both AGW and alarmism, not one or the other. But I don't attempt to win my arguments in such an underhanded manner.

  I applaud your advocacy of free market solutions to AGW, but when it comes to the science you are evincing a lot of the bad traits of the leftist global warming activists: dogmatic certainty, personal attacks and other underhanded debating tactics, failure to assume good faith or read the other person's remarks charitably, singlemindedly attacking straw men, selective amnesia regarding arguments your interlocutors have repeatedly made to you ... need I go on?

  If you have anything constructive to say, please do. If you are simply misinterpreting me, read more carefully, and if you are intentionally misrepresenting me, enough of the dirty debating tactics.

• Published: May 15, 2007 11:02 PM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

• Yes yes, I've already mentioned that Wikipedia's global warming articles are dominated by environmental activists. Also, you quote exclusively from the criticism section and fail to note that the first quote blatantly misrepresents the facts about Michaels's publishing record. I suppose publishing in Science and Nature does not qualify as "of distinction" now?

  You've sunk to a new low Chris and further confirmed my estimation of you. You sink even lower when you utilize the cheap rhetorical trick of global warming activists of dismissing a critic solely because of a partial source of his funding. That's a logical fallacy, ad hominem in fact. At the very least it undermines his credibility no less than receiving government grants undermines the credibility of the environmentalist scientists.

  As I've written on my website:

  In response to Al Gore's attempt to enlist his help in discrediting skeptics of global warming alarmism by making a big deal of alleged or actual funding they had received from corporations, Ted Koppel responded: “Is this a case of industry supporting scientists who happen to hold sympathetic views, or scientists adapting their views to accommodate industry?” Koppel continued:

  "There is some irony in the fact that Vice President Gore - one of the most scientifically literate men to sit in the White House in this century - [is] resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis. The measure of good science is neither the politics of the scientist nor the people with whom the scientist associates. It is the immersion of hypotheses into the acid of truth. That’s the hard way to do it, but it’s the only way that works." (Nightline, "Is Environmental Science for Sale?" February 24, 1994)

  Global warming alarmists often try to discredit skeptics by alluding to their alleged or actual source of funding (however large or small, it doesn't matter to the alarmists) as if this invalidates their claims. This underhanded tactic is a perfect example of the logical fallacy ad hominem and amounts to a personal attack on the victim's integrity. One could just as easily, if not more so, make the same accusation against government funded scientists but this would be just as unsatisfactory an argument against the substance of their claims. For more on conduct unbecoming of a scientist, see my blogpost on scientific skepticism.
  

• Published: May 15, 2007 11:10 PM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

• The following sentence "At the very least it undermines his credibility no less than receiving government grants undermines the credibility of the environmentalist scientists" should probably read "At the very worst it undermines his credibility no less than receiving government grants undermines the credibility of the environmentalist scientists..

• Published: May 15, 2007 11:16 PM

• Geoffrey Allan Plauche

• Crap... "At the very worst it undermines his credibility no less than receiving government grants undermines the credibility of the environmentalist scientists." That's still a mangled sentence.

  It should read "At the very worst it undermines his credibility no more than receiving government grants undermines the credibility of the environmentalist scientists."

• Published: May 16, 2007 12:51 AM

• Mike

• ChrisB, you've said several times in response to other theories of global warming that "well even it was natural, wouldn't that just be more of a reason for drastic government action now." Where do you come up with this stuff? Where do you see government solving problems, particularly on a global scale? I tend to hold the opposite view. Even if it were man made, government solutions would most assuredly be worse than the problem. Just look at the federal solutions we currently have to natural disasters. And these are modest in comparison.

• Published: May 16, 2007 1:01 AM

• Scott D

• There are 55 examples of "mainstream skeptic" on the entire Web (Google) and 2 examples blah blah blah blah...

  My kingdom for relevance!

• Published: May 16, 2007 7:47 AM

• rtr

• rtr: "CO2 are a *compenent variable* responsible, or not responsible (cause and effect), for X% of total heat energy on the Planet = E Earth."

  ChrisB: "That looks like the kind of error message I get when I leave an inverted comma out of my code. Makes about as much sense too."

  Really? There's an average temperature of the Earth which "climatologists" warn will rise. All that matters from a model perspective is that average temperature can change. A = the Sun, B = terrestrial effects (like volcanos), C = the effect of human caused CO2. O = Other effects

  A + B + C + O = AT

  Now what are some reasonable estimates of the weighted contributions of the variables A, B, and C to AT? A and B likely contribute 95% to AT, while C likely contributes less than 1% to AT. Have you ever seen this emphasized? I haven't. Also in their antiquated models, climatologist "scientists" examine the effect of C while assuming A and B are constant. That's naive at best, but more likely, just blatently intellectually dishonest for political motivations.

  It's like the field of "social work". How many free market, or even "conservative", people go into a field like that? I imagine the political leaning is skewed ever more toward hardcore leftist socialist in the field of climatology. You get into a field like climatology (as if that were nothing but a pretend clown suit claim to credibility anyway) because you have a pre-existing agenda.

  They've spent enormous funding resources and credibility capital on analyzing C, while foolishly ignoring A and B, assuming them constant, when changes in A and B, which account for 95% of the effect on AT, could *vastly* overwhelm the effect of the variable C, either way.

  That it takes an economist to point out this fundamental fact of a "climate model", shows mainstream "climatologists" really are wearing clown suit credentials. That they emphasize C, while ignoring A and B in their bloated politicized press announcements and meetings will haunt the field of climatology for a long, long, long time. Not to mention, they really do know practically *jack squat* about A and B.

• Published: May 16, 2007 8:49 AM

• Dennis

• Since part of the debate in this posting regarding AGW centers around the basic science and the validity of the consensus opinion, especially given the institutional influences on research, I believe the following statement by Professor Salerno regarding the "Lost Literature of the Austrian School" topic is also pertinent to the AGW discussion:

  "Both Mises and Rothbard believed that scientific progress does not always take place in a linear fashion. All sciences are afflicted by diversions and lost knowledge along the way, some of which is only recovered many years later."

• Published: May 16, 2007 10:09 AM

• TLWP Sam

• Are you rtr & some others saying that such areas such as climatology don't really qualify as science? Inasmuch as they can't establish facts or provide new whiz-bang inventions but merely theorise? I'd guess that a discipline that only theorise and not much else is technically called a philosophy than actual science.

• Published: May 16, 2007 10:16 AM