The Skeptics Society Looks at AGW
April 27th, 2008 | by Craig |You should really give the whole thing a read, but if you don’t have time, here’s the important part:
So the bottom line is this: When it comes to future climate, no one knows what they’re talking about. No one. Not the IPCC nor its scientists, not the US National Academy of Sciences, not the NRDC or National Geographic, not the US Congressional House leadership, not me, not you, and certainly not Mr. Albert Gore. Earth’s climate is warming and no one knows exactly why. But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all. [Emphasis mine. –Ed.]
8 Responses to “The Skeptics Society Looks at AGW”
By Dani on Apr 27, 2008 | Reply
Global warming has gone from being a scientific theory to a religion. When science stops discussing opposing points of view, or worse yet, ridicules them, there’s a problem. I stopped “believing” in global warming in 2002 when Scientific American wrote an eleven page critique on Bjorn Lomborg’s book on global warming. Eleven pages. That’s when I knew they went from simple scientific disagreement with (which might have taken a page) to demonization of those who did not buy the party line.
A few years later, Oreskes wrote a paper stating that a review of over 1000 articles on global warming showed no major disagreement with the theory, which was completely false on its face, but was published anyway.
This article is exactly right. When the fifth day of a five-day forecast is about as accurate as a roll of the dice, why do we think long-term predictions are any better? And it’s been warmer in the past. Cities aside, would Leif Erikson call New England Vinland if he found it now? I don’t think so.
The frightening thing is that I use to think the hard sciences were the last bastions of apolitcal thinking in the (mostly) liberal seas of academia. But between this and the NEJM I don’t think that way anymore.
By carol on Apr 27, 2008 | Reply
Science was never the squeaky-clean bastion of objectivity that it’s been made out to be. It’s all about the research funding, who gets and who doesn’t.
By goof houlihan on Apr 27, 2008 | Reply
You should see what they do to Intelligent Design.
By Dani on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply
Carol, you’re right. Companies that have the money want research done in their industry- no big surprise there. Taxpayers and congressmen screech about funding basic research with fruit flies and mice- so this is what we get. Strings attached. But, it’s a big step between focusing on an area of research because it’s funded and misinterpreting the data that is actually gathered. Or ignoring it completely.
But it isn’t funding driving this global warming hysteria. First, one doesn’t need much money to analyze old data. And the new data show that overall the earth has been cooling over the last several years. The IPCC keeps revising its doomsday estimates to be less ominous every single time.
I expect this issue to fade away as one of the most embarrassing moments in the history of science, and I hope we all learn something from it. Until then, it’s a little worrisome. Here’s a quote from the head of NASA, Michael Griffin, after he was excoriated last year because he expressed doubt about global warming:
That’s scary.
By Mark T on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply
The earth has not been cooling - it has ceased to warm. Why? Who knows, but it is good news. (One theory is particulate matter from Chinese coal-fired generators reflecting back sunlight.)
The essence of the article appears to be that since we can’t know with certainty, we therefore can’t know. Further, he seems to be saying that we should not research, analyze, theorize, and recommend action based on what we do know.
That’s nonsense. I can see why it resonates with you, but it does not add to intelligent debate.
Did he collect his $10,000 from Exxon?
By Dani on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply
Mark, I do not see the part where the author believes no further research is warranted. I think all he’s saying is that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.To act on partial knowledge may, in fact, be a serious error depending on the repercussions to the economy (not just ours, but globally). That’s one reason why Bush wouldn’t sign the Kyoto agreement, and why France (among others) signed it but failed to follow it. Why take a sure risk for something that’s iffy at best? Not to mention the unintended consequences. Ethanol is a great example of that. We’ve diverted a food source into a fuel, and now we’re reaping the benefits in terms of higher food prices and overall energy inefficiencies.
By Mark T on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply
The great accomplishment of Exxon/Mobil has been to instill the idea that ideas on the subject are “iffy at best”. That was their goal all along - to instill doubt and presesrve their business model.
The threats to our way of life are far more severe from the continued burning of carbon fuels, based on available evidence. Furthermore, given human creativity, there is probably more to be made from greening the earth than burning it. Your fear of economic collapse is almost Luddite.
By goof houlihan on Apr 29, 2008 | Reply
Time out, there, Mark. The luddites of the group are those who question both science and technology and instead insist that we lower our standard of living and quality of life.
Some of us see science and technology as the answer to increases in productivity, standard and quality of living, and not just for the United States. Others, like those on your side of the fence, see the answer to be reducing individual freedom and choice, and a draconian and authoritarian reduction of the developed countries’ standard of living to that of a fourth world country…in the name of “social equality” and “fairness” and only incidentally, “to fight global warming”.
And that’s really what would have to happen to reverse the current warming trend as it’s theorized to go up: a reduction in consumption of up to 90% by the developed countries.
Readers should imagine what a 90% reduction in consumption would do to their quality of life. It wouldn’t just be consumer goods, but heat, shelter and food would be reduced significantly. That’s the real Mark T Luddite plan. I’ve even heard the Dark Ages defended as “sustainable living”. In this case, instead of a feudal lord exercising his rights to keep the serfs on the land and farming, we’d have a feudal state exercising total control over anything the serfs consume.
Skeptic magazine is no respecter of the theories of “economic justice” you postulate any more than they buy off on the latest intelligent design. However, the issue with the debate over global warming is quite balanced and the other side of the global warming debate is adequately represented. The nature of the curve and the drastic action to change the curve are well illustrated.
So who here is for a 90% reduction in their standard of living? I guarrantee you that the Chinese and the Indians aren’t lining up to sign up.