Reply to Warren Warren

(Note: The is a reply to Warren S. Warren’s guest post here – Anthony)

By Roger Cohen

First I would like to say that I respect Warren greatly. He has been very energetic in his support of the APS Topical Group on the Physics of Climate (GPC) and contributed substantially to its development. There is no doubt that he “owns” the GPC, and it is very reasonable that he would try to defend it. We have certainly strongly disagreed on some matters, but I have been impressed by Warren’s openness to new data and new evidence.

Here are a few problems with his post.

First, after all is said and done, the fact remains that non scientific activities were routinely used to exclude proposed speakers whose findings do not support climate doctrine, while known public advocates were given a pass, and that consequently the program reflects this imbalance. Whether it was religious belief, or an endorsement of the “wrong side” in a newspaper OpEd, or the vague charge that a person was simply “too adversarial,” any stick that could be used to beat on an opposition speaker was suitable ammunition to exclude that speaker. This despite the fact that the science in question had been peer reviewed and published. But advocates sailed through without so much as a question. Indeed if notable IPCCers such as Susan Solomon and Kerry Emmanuel had not declined their enthusiastically proffered invitations, the advocates would have run the table. In that case Israeli physicist Nir Shaviv, who finds results in opposition to the doctrine, would not have made the roster from his position as “back up speaker.” Even so, he is the only one of seven invited speakers chosen by GPC whose science does not conform to the doctrine, and even he was proposed under the condition that he present “both sides,” a requirement not applied to any other speaker. The old saying applies here: “If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then… it’s a duck.” Plenty of quacking in the GPC.

Then what should we make of the notion that, well, I am not a real “skeptic” because I may be associated with a decidedly non skeptical activity in carbon control. Here again I am at a loss to understand how this bears on the quacking. But Warren’s diversions into this arena and all manner of other irrelevancies are an object lesson in how some of my former compatriots reflexively cloud the real issue with unrelated fog; in this same fashion, all manner of extraneous non scientific objections were raised against proposed speakers with a skeptical inclination. The fact is that my criticisms of GPC bear on what science is exposed – and what isn’t — in a matter of great scientific controversy, not on whether one is a skeptic.

But yes, a few years ago I helped an old friend and colleague launch a privately funded start-up in CO2 air extraction technology. He and I, along with a few other principals even published a paper on it in that bastion of climate skepticism, “Energy and Environment.” (regular commenter Richard Courtney may recall that he reviewed it). But why do this if the CO2 issue is a non problem? Well, I am quite sure that that it is a non problem, but there is a small but finite probability that I am wrong. Thus, it might make sense to have a viable, cheap insurance policy on the table. However, the favored government measures of cap-and-trade and carbon taxes are absurdly expensive; the policy premium is larger than the risk being insured. Geoengineering is also absurd. The air extraction venture could be such a cheap policy, though much R, D & E remains to be done, and right now none of your tax dollars is paying for it. Thus it is a hedged strategy – something one does a lot of in industrial research and planning, where I spent my career.

Finally in order to claim some measure of balance in a completely imbalanced GPC program, Warren seeks to take credit for the GPC for inviting the well known skeptic Richard Lindzen. In a comment he writes, “In addition, Richard Lindzen (MIT) will be speaking at the March meeting, having earlier accepted an invitation to speak in a different session.” Warren neglects to mention that the “different session” was in fact set up by a completely different APS group which GPC had nothing to do with. Professor Lindzen’s invitation came from the Forum on International Physics (FIP), not the GPC. Without anyone in GPC knowing it, this separate and independent group developed an excellent diverse speakers program of international scope, including Professor Lindzen. When GPC Executive Committee members learned of this session, it explicitly refused the opportunity to cosponsor it. Thus we have the spectacle of the Topical Group on the Physics of Climate refusing to formally acknowledge another APS group’s efforts within the field of climate physics. The good news is that there is indeed a spark of objective science focus alive within the APS, but it is not in GPC.

Warren is right when he writes that the GPC “has the potential to dramatically improve the scientific discourse in this field.” Alas, what we have right now is a deeply flawed and biased APS Topical Group on the Physics of Climate. It desperately needs real oversight to ensure that fairness prevails. Until then it will lack credibility. Perhaps this incident will provide the impetus to bring about such a course correction. Let us hope.

About these ads

34 thoughts on “Reply to Warren Warren

  1. If Warren found the use of the word “incontrovertible” to be objectionable, why didn’t he speak up like a man where it might have counted? If GPC can’t correct this obvious error then it is pretty pathetic anyway.

  2. Keep portentology out of the APS, please. I’m sure the ASS (American Society of Soothsayers) is better suited to handle that kind of science.

  3. ferd berple says:
    October 25, 2012 at 10:57 pm
    Political correctness killed freedom of speech, the only true weapon against tyranny.

    I found the solution to political correctness. Just call them every profanity name in the book screaming to them at the top of your lungs, and tell them to do you know what to themselves. That usually works for me.

  4. @ Michael

    That may make you feel better but in my experience such antics are not that helpful ;0)

    I find it takes time and effort, but those of the PC type are best dealt with in my view by simply asking to explain why they say what they do then challenge them with the reality.

    The result is that they end up calling you a racist or similar because whatever the point being discussed you do so because you “do not care”.

    The reality is of course – it is not us that suffer a lack of caring.

    It is those with the PC agenda that sacrifice “care” for dogma.

  5. Such an easy solution to this controversy about which disputant is “right”…Dr. Warren, all you need to do is be honest and open and transparent, and release the names of all considered by the GPC group, and the reason why those rejected candidates were rejected; who accepted, who declined, and how second-tier candidates were promoted to first tier. This will undoubtably show Dr. Cohen up as a dissembler.

    You DO want to be transparent, don’t you? Transparency couldn’t POSSIBLY be in anything but your best interest, right? After all, transparency is the ultimate defense to skeptic’s crazy paranoia. So much stuff has been deliberately hidden over the years that an exercise like this can only add fuel to skeptic’s fire unless there is total transparency.

    For instance, whose peer-reviewed science was rejected because they also have religious beliefs? I wasn’t aware that this was not permitted. Is that a special rule for Climate Scientists, or is this built into the by-laws of the APS?

  6. This is why I do not believe anyone here is serious about climate –

    The Italian conviction was for predictions that had no interpretative basis and the defense by the empirical community is that predictive sciences are not certainties so the judgment was unjust yet the same empirical guys will insist that global warming predictions are a certainty and convict the rest of the world for bad behavior as that is what is driving their predictions and convictions.You couldn’t make this stuff up and the most dismal part is that few understand the empirical welfare scam that has the wider population funding a vicious cycle where more dire predictions create more scientists who in turn fuel the fire.

    As the person who has actually worked with earthquakes and the internal fluid mechanism that causes those short term events within context of plate tectonics and evolutionary geology,this study requires the simple understanding of latitudinal speeds with a maximum equatorial speed of 1037.5 miles per hour.The empirical community refuses to accept that the Earth has only one circumference and one rotation because it would interfere with their models which assigns two rotations and two circumferences for the Earth !!.Again you can’t make this stuff up but they certainly have –

    “Some sources state that Earth’s equatorial speed is slightly less, or 1,669.8 km/h. This is obtained by dividing Earth’s equatorial circumference by 24 hours. However, the use of only one circumference unwittingly implies only one rotation in inertial space, so the corresponding time unit must be a sidereal hour”

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

    Maybe an intelligent reader here will ask themselves how is it possible to believe in complete and utter nonsense when faced with basic planetary facts,not complex issues like climate which is an offshoot of the daily and annual cycles of the Earth but core facts.

  7. It desperately needs real oversight to ensure that fairness prevails.
    ——–
    Depends on whose definition of fairness we are talking about here. Roger Cohen seems to think only his definition of fairness is valid. Except we don’t know what that definition of fairness is. It could be he was insisting that only people he approves of could be allowed to speak, or only activists who write anti-AGW pieces in newspapers and make up stories about other researchers could be allowed to speak. In both of those cases other people are going to object.

    I suspect that Roger Cohen was claiming 50 million physicists are against any attribution to AGW, but when the time came no one turned up, so he felt lonely and threw a tantrum.

  8. Lazy Teenager, Freedom of speech is not about fairness, or political correctness, it is about being able to say what you believe. I believe very little of what you say, but I would defend to my death your right to say it. Your defense of AGW is very commendable though some-what misplaced as the future looks like cooling. If you as a young person want a profitable future I would suggest you invest in carbon or Uranium.

  9. lazy, Everything you say, is a tantrum. You’re too busy wailing to see what’s clear to the rest of us, re: Dr. Cohen’s quite rational POV.

  10. Roger, to clear up any misunderstandings, could you point which IPCC reports and chapters you were a lead author on? (as stated in your online bio). Thanks

  11. LazyTeenager says:
    October 26, 2012 at 1:49 am
    It desperately needs real oversight to ensure that fairness prevails.
    =============
    Why? Fairness is not natural – it is a human invention. Is it fair to a squirrel to be killed and eaten by a cat? Is it fair to a plant to be killed and eaten by an animal? Is it fair to an insect to be stepped on a killed by a larger animal?

    If we are interested in preserving the natural world, then the concept of fairness must be thrown away. For if we prevent the cat from eating the squirrel, then we might be fair to the squirrel but unfair to the cat that needs the squirrel for food. At the same time, we might actually be doing the squirrel great harm, by allowing the squirrel to breed unchecked, leading to mass starvation and population collapse. The classic example is Yellowstone park.

    Fairness exists to the extent the playing field is level. Beyond that it involves limiting one creatures rights to the benefit or another. In other words, fairness is human’s playing god, deciding that squirrels should live and cats should starve.

    Fairness by its very nature is unfair in the natural world.

  12. Tibor Skardanelli says:
    October 26, 2012 at 12:51 am
    Ferd, political correctness did not kill freedom of speech because it cannot be killed :)
    =======
    In principle I agree. However, there was a time 50 years ago when you could discuss anything. Today, if you question a politically correct belief, you are considered to have committed a sin worse than murder. Next step is mandatory sensitivity training.

  13. Here are a few problems with his post.

    First, after all is said and done, the fact remains that non scientific activities were routinely used to exclude proposed speakers whose findings do not support climate doctrine, …

    Given that he used non scientific activities of yours to build an ad hom response to your charges in his post here, that is very easy to believe.

    Indeed if notable IPCCers such as Susan Solomon and Kerry Emmanuel had not declined their enthusiastically proffered invitations, the advocates would have run the table. In that case Israeli physicist Nir Shaviv, who finds results in opposition to the doctrine, would not have made the roster from his position as “back up speaker.”

    Funny how Warren failed to mention that. Must have used too many of his words on ad homs – weren’t enough left for the little details like that one.

    Even so, he is the only one of seven invited speakers chosen by GPC whose science does not conform to the doctrine, …

    One skeptic to six true believers? I simply cannot believe that a warmist would consider those numbers “balanced”.

    “… and even he was proposed under the condition that he present “both sides,” a requirement not applied to any other speaker.

    Ahhhh … that explains it. There’s the “balance”.

    Then what should we make of the notion that, well, I am not a real “skeptic” because I may be associated with a decidedly non skeptical activity in carbon control.

    That makes your skeptical statements against interest. Lends credibility. Stunning that Warren is blind to that. Well, maybe not stunning, given that he has spent his entire career behind the ivy covered walls of the ivory tower. Kind of goes with the territory.

    Warren neglects to mention that the “different session” was in fact set up by a completely different APS group which GPC had nothing to do with. Professor Lindzen’s invitation came from the Forum on International Physics (FIP), not the GPC. Without anyone in GPC knowing it, this separate and independent group developed an excellent diverse speakers program of international scope, including Professor Lindzen. When GPC Executive Committee members learned of this session, it explicitly refused the opportunity to cosponsor it. Thus we have the spectacle of the Topical Group on the Physics of Climate refusing to formally acknowledge another APS group’s efforts within the field of climate physics.

    I was wrong.

    On Warren’s thread, I said that his true calling would have been to the chair of the APS Committee on Informing the Public. Clearly, he should be gleicking your Ethics Committee.

  14. Furthermore, Dr Cohen, a practical, cheap extractor of CO2 from the atmosphere may be a marketable technology that the coal-fired power companies could use to meet the regulations of the EPA rather than shutting down. Also, CO2 is a valuable industrial reagent and is also used by truck farmers to enhance CO2 content of greenhouses – perhaps your technology could turn out to be cheaper than that of air distillation producers. CO2 may not be an environmental problem but it is a problem for some important segments of industry because of hysterical legislators and badly-informed activists.

  15. JJ says:
    October 26, 2012 at 7:15 am

    [H]e should be gleicking your Ethics Committee.

    Excellent use of the verb ‘to gleick’. Please explain to LazyTeenager as well….

  16. Gary Pearse says:

    October 26, 2012 at 9:48 am

    “Furthermore, Dr Cohen, a practical, cheap extractor of CO2 from the atmosphere may be a marketable technology that the coal-fired power companies could use to meet the regulations of the EPA rather than shutting down. Also, CO2 is a valuable industrial reagent and is also used by truck farmers to enhance CO2 content of greenhouses – perhaps your technology could turn out to be cheaper than that of air distillation producers.”

    Thank you for the comment.

    Yes, theoretically coal plants could be carbon neutral or even carbon negative sites, though flu gas extraction at coal power plants is technically further along and enjoying much government support. Low cost is of course the key, and this means low energy costs of extraction in particular. You are also correct about the commercial use of CO2. In addition to greenhouses, there is a demand for CO2 for use in Chemically Enhanced Oil Recovery (CEOR) to extend the production curves of mature fields. An example is the Permian Basin where producers buy pipelined CO2 from gas production wells where reservoir CO2 is separated at nearby gas processing plants. As I recall the EPA estimated that an additional ~90 billion barrels of oil is producible with CO2-based CEOR from existing US fields.

  17. The second of two very-thoughtful and well-written pieces.
    And it’s noteworthy that the reply to Warren’s response is far more challenging.
    Let’s hope that Cohen’s sensibility is recognized within the APS,
    to salvage scientific integrity and spare the institution another crash and burn.

  18. Roger:

    I find it telling that your original post that led to this thread clearly misrepresented the APS statement on climate change. In your post, you stated that the APS statement used the phrase “the science is incontrovertible” (your quotes). Of course this engendered many indignant replies about those biased physicists who should know better than to make such a statement about science. But let’s look at what the statement ACTUALLY said ” The evidence is incontrovertible. Global warming is occurring. ” Note the word “incontrovertible” refers to evidence, i.e. observations – not to science or any theories or models. The statement does not even ascribe the warming to anthropogenic causes. It was worded that way intentionally (I know – I was there). Compare this statement to the AGU “The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. …. With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. ” Or to the American Chemical Society “However, comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem. ” These are both much stronger attributive statements than the APS statement.

    You may still disagree with the statement as it was written, as many readers of this site will, but I cannot believe that you somehow “forgot” that the statement was worded in that way, as you led a campaign against it within the APS. Your use of the phrase “science is incontrovertible” is inexcusable, and was clearly misinformation. Unfortunately this is symptomatic of the dysfunctional state of discourse that now exists around this topic.

    I also felt the review of the climate statement was flawed as well (although for differing reasons) – they used the IPCC report, which was old at that time (ignoring much more recent results that bolstered the statement), and tried to disavow the word “incontrovertible” while essentially re-affirming it the the supplementary text.

    And I feel sad for Warren S. Warren. I was opposed to the formation of the topical group in the APS, because it was being formed not by practitioners of the field (although there are many climate scientists in the APS, there is very little climate science business conducted at APS meetings – it occurs elsewhere), but by “interested parties” on both sides of the issue. APS Topical groups have always been formed by researchers within a subfield, unlike this Physics of Climate topical group. I knew it would just become a source of conflict, and this just bears out my expectations. Warren is an upstanding and careful scientist who I know was approaching this as a positive step forward to advance climate science, so it is unfortunate that it devolves into the usual finger-pointing that seems to be par for the course.

  19. Steve;
    I was opposed to the formation of the topical group in the APS, because it was being formed not by practitioners of the field (although there are many climate scientists in the APS, there is very little climate science business conducted at APS meetings – it occurs elsewhere), but by “interested parties” on both sides of the issue. APS Topical groups have always been formed by researchers within a subfield, unlike this Physics of Climate topical group.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Ah, so now the truth rears itz ugly head. If Steve is to be believed, this APS Topical Group was formed for political purposes in the first place. What other purpose can we ascribe to a group of “interested parties” when forming such a group other than by practitioners in the field is the common practice within APS?

    Combine this with Dr Warren’s blatant attempt at perception management when citing the inclusion of Richard Lindzen as a speaker providing balance, when now we learn that Lindzen’s participation is entirely divorced from Warren’s topical group and has nothing to do with Dr Warren or his efforts on this matter, or that of his topical group.

    As for your nit picking regarding the use of the word “incontravertible”, the statement by the APS as a whole is what counts, and the word incontravertible inserted into that snipped you quoted is just not approprate, in fact, ill advised according to Dr Warren himself. Similarily, comparing the APS statement to that of other societies if farcical. That they are even further off the path of science than the APS hardly excuses the APS.

  20. above should have read:

    when forming such a group other than by practitioners in the field is NOT the common practice within APS?

  21. Steve:

    At October 26, 2012 at 12:40 pm you say

    I also felt the review of the climate statement was flawed as well (although for differing reasons) – they used the IPCC report, which was old at that time (ignoring much more recent results that bolstered the statement), and tried to disavow the word “incontrovertible” while essentially re-affirming it the the supplementary text.

    I am really interested to know of the “much more recent results that bolstered the statement”.

    Would they be
    (a) the global temperature measurements still showing no trend – so no global warming – since 1997,
    (b) the absence of the “committed warming” asserted in the IPCC Report,
    (c) the failure to detect the ‘hot spot’ which the IPCC Report said is the ‘fingerprint’ of warming from greenhouse gases,and
    (d) the recent record amount of Antarctic ice?
    Or perhaps you had some other “recent results” in mind?

    My questions would seem to be of interest in the light of your defensive final sentence.

    Richard

  22. Steve says:

    I find it telling that your original post that led to this thread clearly misrepresented the APS statement on climate change.

    No it doesn’t. The APS statement is clearly a piece of engineered text, designed to strongly advance certain propositions while retaining ‘plausible deniability’ through deceitful parsing. It is that second component that you are attempting to work right now.

    But let’s look at what the statement ACTUALLY said ” The evidence is incontrovertible. Global warming is occurring. ” Note the word “incontrovertible” refers to evidence, i.e. observations – not to science or any theories or models.

    Interesting assertion, that “science” does not encompass “evidence, i.e. observations”. Is there an official APS statement to that effect as well?

    The statement does not even ascribe the warming to anthropogenic causes.

    BS!

    The two statements that immediately follow the “incontrovertable” one are:

    “If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

    That incontrovertably ascribes the warming to anthropogenic causes. It is patently dishonest to claim otherwise.

  23. Those interested in the arcane world of the APS Statement may be interested in this bit of history. After the 2010 additions for the purpose of clarification, the APS did quietly modify the Statement itself. In footnotes accessible through the small print in this link http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm certain “copy edits” entered in February 2012 suggest that the word “compelling” is more suitable than “incontrovertible.” However, there is no mention of the most significant change to the Statement: the insertion of a paragraph break between Paragraphs 2 and 3. In the original Statement, these two paragraphs were combined. This new separation is intended to create the appearance that what is “incontrovertible” is only the fact of global warming, not its attribution to human activity and the consequences of inaction. The original Statement made it clear that the fact of global warming, and its attribution and consequences were “incontrovertible.” This sleight of hand suggests a desire on the part of APS to distance itself from its own Statement without going through the formal step of revising or rescinding it and publicly announcing what it had done.
    — Roger

  24. Steve;
    You may still disagree with the statement as it was written, as many readers of this site will,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You make the same error as Dr Warren made in his comment in the other thread. You and he both seem to know what readers of this blog think. This to me is as egregious as any of the other blatantly misleading statements made by the two of you to date. I challenge you, as I did Dr Warren:

    Show up.

    Show up and participate.

    I refer to myself as a raging skeptic, but I’ve spent as much time on this site debunking bad science by skeptics as I have being critical of poor science by alarmists. I’ve spent enough time explaining that “back radiation” in fact exists, and how we know it exists, that I’ve been accused of being a warmist on multiple occassions. That’s just a single example. There’s plenty of skeptics out there with poor or outright wrong understanding of the science, and many of us go out of our way to set the record straight. Robert Brown shows up. Richard Courtney shows up. Leif Svalgaard shows up. Roy Spencer shows up. Clive Best, Roger Pielke, Paul Homewood, Ryan Mau….the list goes on and on and on.

    Get something wrong in regard to the science on this site and you will get pummeled in a hurry (I speak from experience on this also). If you’d engage, you’d discover that your assumption that this audience is a single shade of white is not just wrong, it is hopelessly wrong. Will you and Dr Warren’s comments be poorly received? Yes. But the reasons for this are far more diverse than you can possibly imagine.

    So far, in my opinion, both you and Dr Warren have come out looking rather poorly. Manipulative in fact. I suggest that your best shot at redemption is to leave your attempt to defend the indefensible behind and instead do something that is actually positive for the debate and the discussion, which is to show up in this and other forums, and participate in a positive fashion.

    The year is 2012 Dr Warren. Science is not longer restricted to ivory tower discussions facilitated by member’s only journals. Newspapers and magazines (and a journal is no more than a niche market magazine) are increasingly irrelevant. The days of the printing press are over. Absent any government control over what can and cannot be published on the internet, the days of committees of “interested parties” formed for political purposes inside of otherwise credible science societies are similarly numbered.

    For good or ill, the real debate is moving to forums such as this one. Does that mean we need to put up with a lot of chaff mixed into the wheat? Absolutely it does. But the science will prevail for the simple reason that the forum is open, and nobody can form committees that purport to represent the opinions of others when they do not.

    So what shall it be Steve? Dr Warren? Will you join us in the 21st century? Will you descend from your ivory tower, participate, teach, and learn? Will you find out for yourself what we think and why?

    Will you show up?

  25. Roger Cohen says:

    This new separation is intended to create the appearance that what is “incontrovertible” is only the fact of global warming, not its attribution to human activity and the consequences of inaction.

    It is much worse than that. Above, we have a purported member of that committee claiming that attribution of the warming to human activity was not asserted at all, let alone as incontrovertable.

    It is a surreal experience, watching people tell lies like that.

  26. “Steve says: October 26, 2012 at 12:40 pm
    Roger:…”

    You don’t say!? We’re shocked! Shocked! /sarc

    So, let’s see; Warren is a true CAGW cultist in spite of education that should’ve limited blind AGW faith and hatred of those who might be better scientists than him.

    Steve; is a raging CAGW cultist who wants the open minded scientists and their ilk under control, er, thumbs of the faithful. You wouldn’t be the minion assigned to read the WUWT posts for Warren would you?

    Both Warren and Steve have clearly demonstrated:
    Complete lack of science
    Complete lack of professional civility
    Complete absence of nobility and honor
    Absolute ability to twist facts to meet your needs. Faith before sscience eh?
    Expressed desire to reign as masters over APS and subgroups
    Absurd notions of how people work together (reason for the minion assumption, only one lord and master)

    What both of have clearly expressed and demonstrated is that the APS people think they joined is not the APS you’re building/contriving. Both of you have made a mockery of science and APS.

    I believe it is now time for members of the APS that still believe in science and the scientific method to consider a new APS type society. Perhaps start a WUWT type blog for APS ex- and soon to be ex-members.

    Alternatively, APS members who care could try to take back APS and again make it a society of brilliant scientists. Though given what we see here as venomous snakes in the grass subverting science, it will not be easy.

    In either case, or other alternatives, someone needs to spread the word and expose all of these machinations for ‘your good’. Facts nor method, apparently, do not matter to these cultists.

    Basically, it appears that APS has definitely joined the ranks of societies and publications that used to be scientific.

  27. David,I look at current climate issues as a minor element of a much larger historical and technical picture by pushing climate temporarily into the background and the idea that our species can control the planet’s temperature – something that gets lost amid assertions and counter-assertions
    here and what is really an assault on the eyes.

    I look at where the modeling/predictions agenda originally arose and specifically the technical details surrounding its acceptance in the late 17th century with the idea that there is no perceptual boundary between the behavior of objects at a human level on one side with the motion and behavior of objects at a planetary and solar system scale on the other side.

    What they did in the late 17th century was bundle the separate AM/PM system and the Lat/Long system, which together contain the information that the Earth turns once in 24 hours,into a calendar based clockwork system known as Ra/Dec hence the clockwork solar system beloved of modelers and why today it is close to impossible to find a scientist who can keep one 24 hour day in step with one rotation.Without that basic fact,our era can’t explain why the temperature goes up and down daily in response to the rotation of the Earth but we can,with the Ra/Dec system,predict when a star or the moon will rise and set,when a lunar or solar eclipse will occur and things like that.The price for being able to predict the locations of celestial objects within a rotating celestial sphere (Ra/Dec) is terrible as we lose cause and effect between planetary dynamics and terrestrial effects.

    That men would eventually predict that humans can control planetary temperatures was inevitable given the priority of predictions/modeling over the stable narrative of interpretative sciences.I try not to give into dismay that the issues here have descended into personal animosities mostly falling along the lines of political/social concerns when the genuine issue is what we inherited from previous generations through the centuries.We are the first generation to have the capacity to actually do something productive with celestial and terrestrial sciences but iconic historical characters and their iconic theories are initially hard to overcome and especially when jobs and reputations are relying on them.

  28. Although, I agree with Warren’s views, you’ve raised some valid points. While reading his post, I also felt that Warren was unnecessarily trying to take credit for inviting Richard Lindzen.

Comments are closed.