Your letter to The Guardian is an example of how a bunch of really smart people (11 Nobel Laureates!) can be really dumb. In fact, it is a one-page summary of everything that is wrong with climate science today. For example, you say:
For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.The first problem here is that you not too subtly imply that anyone who doesn't agree with your climate science predictions must be some sort of Bible literalist. You know how poisonous the current debate is, that's what your letter is complaining about. You're either part of the problem or part of the solution, dudes.
But the big, huge hairy problem is that there's quite a large set of data that falsifies your man-is-causing-the-change hypothesis. As a public service, let me point out a few:
The climate changed dramatically in pre-industrial times, most notably in the Medieval Warm Period (ca 800-1300 AD). There's quite a lot of time spent in the climate science community poo-pooing this MWP as "only European in scope", despite all sorts of data from China and the Indian Ocean (to name only two) that show it was world wide in scope.
Even worse, the MWP was accepted as a fact before climate science became so politicized (see the 1990 IPCC AR1 report). Only when Michael Mann's bogus "Hockey Stick" chart (you know - the one generated by his code, that creates Hockey Stick shaped graphs from even random data), combined with a few years of unusually warm weather in the late 1990s (translation: "weather is not climate") combined with a hundred billion dollars in government funding looking for a problem to hang their Cap-and-Trade program on - only then did we start hearing revisionism. An Inconvient Truth, perhaps?
But it gets worse. The current Climate O' Doom™ warming model requires four supporting assumptions, or it collapses: the current temperatures are unprecedented (thus the attacks on the MWP), the recent rate of change is unprecedented; the magnitude of the recent change is unprecedented; and the current rate of change is accelerating. It appears that at least three of these have been falsified (Vinther, et al., Nature, 461, 385).
Say what you will, but to lump some quite shoddy climate model printouts in with our understanding of the age of the solar system is to engage in precisely what you are complaining about:
Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence.Yup, that's the suspicion that we have of the lot of you. It doesn't help that, in addition to trying to plow under any data that falsifies your pet hypothesis, you engage not in sober scientific discussion (especially of the uncertainties), but rather shriek oh noez thermageddon! Quite handy for a certain set of politicians, right there.
We urge our policymakers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels.Fortunately, the public isn't buying it. It seems that they have looked at the $50 Trillion cost of the proposed "solution", looked at what's been the snowiest decade ever recorded, and are saying "no thanks." And in all honesty, they should be saying that. And you should all consider yourselves lucky that the public isn't paying attention to the lousy science in the IPCC reports or the horrendous problems in the temperature databases - or the idiotic things that politicians do based on your pet theories.
Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively.The science is settled, it's an emergency - srlsy - and pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Guys, let me be be candid: even I can bring up serious, data-founded problems with your hypothesis. Even little old me. Your hypothesis stinks. In all honesty, we expect more from an almost-dozen Nobel Laureates. Especially when the public is paying your stinking salaries.
Sorry, I'm grading this as a D-. Go back and try again.
Love, Borepatch
P.S. If you can come up with a hypothesis that's not falsified everywhere by primary sources, maybe we can be BFF!
P.P.S. BTW, there are Nobel Laureates who are as skeptical as me. Probably Flat-Earth shills for the Oil Companies, or something.
They stand their theory of man-made climate change next to the theory of evolution, the big-bang theory, and the origin of the earth - hoping someone will snap a picture real quick to capture the moment.
ReplyDeleteEver see where a fringe nutbag manages to get into a political rally or fundraiser and gets his picture taken standing by the President, or some other Bigwig? Hundreds of people get their picture taken like that at such events and the President doesn't have any idea who any of those people are.
Yet the nutbag will wave around the picture afterward and stammer,"SEE! I'm legitimate!".
Yeah... that.
An unwritten rule you can count on in public debate is that the weaker the argument, the more strident the rhetoric. That press piece is a good example.
ReplyDeleteThere is so much wrong and so much stupid in that letter than it's frankly embarrassing.
It's worth noting that the "members of the National Academy of Sciences" are not all physical scientists, and not all climatologists. They are arguing by appeal to authority, the weakest intellectual argument there is.
The 31,000+ who signed the SPP petition urging us not to comply with Kyoto outnumber them handily: http://www.petitionproject.org/
I was considering fisking this piece, but you've done a pretty thorough job. Might not be worth the "ink", now.
"But the big, huge hairy problem is that there's quite a large set of data that falsifies your man-is-causing-the-change hypothesis."
ReplyDeleteThis is complete and utter nonsense. You are clearly a denialist who will stop at nothing to spread misinformation. You are merely parroting the good old denialist lies.
Anonymous, thanks for stopping by. I left multiple links to primary sources falsifying the "sudden, rapid, and unprecedented" AGW theory - at least four, and if you click through the links to my older posts, you'll find many more.
ReplyDeleteYes, there are links to Watts Up With That and sites like that, but there are also links to Nature.
Yes, clearly I will stop at nothing to spread peer-reviewed information from one of the top scientific journals.
But my post is filled with links. Please let me know which specific posts contain misinformation, and why you consider it that. It's rather a bit easy to drop a "you're clearly a denialist" bomb and skip out. A reasoned, scientific discussion requires people to put their data and reasoning out for everyone to see.
I hope you come back with your data and reasoning.
"sudden, rapid, and unprecedented"
ReplyDeleteWhere did you get that quote? Let me guess, more dishonesty?
Links to Nature, eh? Where?
Example of misinformation:
"But the big, huge hairy problem is that there's quite a large set of data that falsifies your man-is-causing-the-change hypothesis."
You are going on about the MWP and old creationist, er, denialist canards like that. Quite pathetic.
You also falsely and dishonestly claim that the hockey stick is false.
Typical creationist, eh, denialist propaganda, in other words.
Links to Nature, eh? Where?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I included a dozen links in the post. Which do you have a problem with?
Oh, right - you didn't read any of them. Probably a waste of time, since anyone who doesn't agree with you must be a Flat-Earther/Creationist/too of the oil companies, or something.
Whatever.
I'm happy to debate the issues intelligently with people who want to do the same. Feel free to come back sometime if that's what you want to do.
Until then, I'm lumping you in the bucket of "too lazy to read". [rolls eyes]
"I included a dozen links in the post."
ReplyDeleteHuh? All links in the text are to your own blog, or to known creationist liar sites like "co2science" or Watts' liar blog.
Anonymous, my other posts have links to the sources. Feel free to tell me which ones you disagree with. Extra points for saying why you disagree.
ReplyDeleteAs to Watts (I don't recall linking to CO2Science), sure. But it would help if you'd identify which links you think point to wrong information, and why you think it's wrong.
Of course, it's always easier to take the whole "Hey you Deniers, get off my lawn" stance. I was kind of hoping for something a little more interesting than that, though.