From:Canada Free Press
By Dirck T. Hartmann Thursday, July 3, 2008
(Editor’s Note: To many in the know, Dirck T. Hartmann, who worked on the Apollo Space Program and many other significant NASA projects, was a fighter pilot in WWII, flying P38s. So when this gifted scientist/engineer/physicist and 87-year-old hero felt compelled to answer the questions of Man Made Global Warming, not only his son and grandchildren knew he had something to say with factual substance, truth and knowledge. What he has to say is clear and concise and should be read by everyone.)
What is your carbon footprint? That is the wrong question to ask. A more meaningful question is–How much carbon dioxide does it take to grow the wheat required to produce a loaf of bread? Or–How much carbon dioxide does it take to grow the corn for the chicken feed required to produce a dozen eggs?
Far from being a pollutant, man along with every animal on land, fish in the sea, and bird in the air is totally dependent on atmospheric carbon dioxide for his food supply.
Some politicians complain that the United States with only 3% of the world population uses 25% of the energy. But the clean carbon dioxide which we produce is increasing food production everywhere on earth. China, on the other hand, is building new power plants at a record rate using the abundant domestic supply of coal they have and has now passed the United States as the leading producer of carbon dioxide. Although their coal has a high sulfur content, they are building the new plants without any pollution controls. The sulfur dioxide which these power plants are releasing to the atmosphere, besides smelling like rotten eggs is, in sunlight, readily converted to sulfur trioxide, the highly solublegas responsible for most acid rain.
Photosynthesis is the process by which plants, using energy from sunlight, convert carbon dioxide and water into high energy fuels. It is responsible for all the fuel that feeds forest fires, and for the rapid grow-back of fuel after a fire. But even with the hundreds of millions of tons of coal and the billions of barrels of oil and gasoline that are burned annually, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere remains about .04%.
It has been estimated that more than two hundred billion tons of atmospheric carbon are fixed yearly by photosynthesis, 10%to 20% by land plants, and the remaining 80%to 90% by plant plankton and algae in the ocean, which constantly resupply us with oxygen. Atmospheric carbon dioxide acts like a thermostat for plant growth, increases triggering vast blooms of ocean algae, and spurts in the rate of growth of land plants. As long as man burns coal and oil responsibly, that is with pollution controls that minimize the production of acid rain, the earth can never have too much carbon dioxide. The plants will not permit it.
Anyone who has lived in a desert area where the relative humidity is frequently below 5%, knows that dry air is a lousy green house gas. It can be 115 degrees F (46 degrees C) during the day yet cool off so rapidly that a sweater is needed two or three hours after sunset. Despite the heat sink of the ground with rocks hot enough to fry an egg, the heat is radiated rapidly away through the dry air to the clear night sky. Since dry desert air has about the same .04% concentration of carbon dioxide as air everywhere else, it is not credible to conclude that carbon dioxide is causing global warming
Water vapor is the most effective greenhouse gas by far With high humidity, even without cloud cover, the night air cools at a rate so slow as to be nearly imperceptible, particularly if you are trying to sleep without air conditioning.
High humidity is the reason nights are so balmy in the tropics. At 100 degrees F and 100% relative humidity, water vapor accounts for only 2% of the atmosphere. It has a greater effect than all other greenhouse gases combined but, since it cannot be regulated, is rarely mentioned as a greenhouse gas.
If human activity is not the cause, why are the ice sheets on the earth poles receding? They are melting for the same reason that the polar caps on Mars are melting. For the 200 years or so that a record of sun spot activity has been kept, it has been observed that global temperatures on earth correlate closely with sun spot activity,very low activity corresponding to a mini ice age, and high activity to global warming.
Every second the sun converts 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium, consuming its mass at the rate of 4 million tons per second. It has been doing this for 4.5 billion years and has about 4.5 billion years to go before all its hydrogen is used up. At that time it will have consumed less than 1% of its mass. This enormous solar furnace is responsible for climate change as well as all weather on earth.
The U.S. has a domestic supply of coal that is alone sufficient to meet our present power needs and projections for growth for at least 1,000 years, even without building any new nuclear power plants. Burning the coal responsibly and releasing the carbon locked up in it as clean carbon dioxide will benefit crop yields all over the earth. The great atmospheric patterns of air movements ensure a steady supply of carbon dioxide for crop growth, and a steady supply of oxygen for animals and people. To increase the rate at which photosynthesis removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, a respected scientist proposed to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, seeding the ocean to trigger algae blooms. This practical, inexpensive, highly effective means for sequestering carbon dioxide would benefit the food chain in the oceans and increase fish populations. But because it did not impose hardships, require trading carbon credits, punish the U.S. or any other nation, or require increased governmental control, the IPCC rejected it. The IPCC uses the hoax of man made global warming to increase its power and that of a corrupt, anti-American United Nations that has proven itself impotent in combating world wide acts of terrorism, genocide in Sudan, the real threat of nuclear proliferation in the mid-east from Iran and Syria, or human rights violations in China and Africa.
Our mainstream media uses every opportunity to hype the hoax of man made global warming by repeated reporting of data and events that appear to support it, and ignoring those that contradict it. When the NFC championship game In 2007 between the Packers and the New York Giants was played at Green Bay in record low temperatures and blizzard conditions, there was no mention of global cooling; nor was there any in 2007 when below freezing temperatures threatened the vegetable crops in the south and the citrus crops in Florida. The drought in California is the result of colder than normal conditions in the equatorial Pacific Ocean, and the fact that ocean temperatures along the Pacific coast have been falling for the last three years is never mentioned. But after hurricane Katrina we were fed a host of dire predictions which warned of the increasing severity of storms, the melting of the polar ice caps, and the flooding of coastal areas from rising sea level, if we do not drastically reduce the release of greenhouse gasses to combat global warming. Which greenhouse gasses is not specified. We already have pollution controls in the smokestacks of most power plants, steel mills, and factories that minimize the release of sulfur dioxide.
The only completely uncontrolled exhaust gas is carbon dioxide, and photosynthesis automatically controls its atmospheric concentration for us.
Three billion years ago when the earth’s atmosphere was an unbreathable brew of noxious gases with almost no oxygen, a small green algae evolved in the ocean which, using the energy from sunlight over a few million years, completely altered the earth’s atmosphere. This oceanic green algae, the first plant to use photosynthesis to convert carbon dioxide and water into high energy fuel, was of course followed by the evolution of an almost limitless number and variety of carbon dioxide consuming plants.
Fortunately for mankind and all animals, fish,and birds, all of whom are totally dependent on plants, the oceanic green algae continues to perform its magic in the oceans of the earth today. Every three centuries all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and dissolved in the waters of the earth goes through the cycle photosynthesis, decay, photosynthesis, with the cycle constantly renewing the earth’s supply of oxygen.
People on the left claim global warming is real, a threat to the continued existence of mankind, and the debate as to its cause is over! Although none of this is true, it nevertheless is what four of my grandchildren were taught in high school. Most politicians on the left have little respect for truth and no regard for clarity, and apparently many high school teachers reflect their views. My oldest granddaughter just graduated from MITwhere she was spared the political rhetoric of the left on global warming. However Caltech’s Argyros Professor and professor of chemistry, in an article titled “Powering the Planet”states “The carbon dioxide we produce over the next 40 years, and its associated effects will last for a timescale comparable to modern human history. This is why, within the next 20 years we either solve this problem or the world will never be the same.” This is nonsense. It ignores the more than 200 billion tons of carbon that is sequestered yearly through photosynthesis from carbon dioxide In the atmosphere. Since this has been known for 40 years, I can only assume he is politically motivated to make such a statement. Hopefully man made global warming will come to be recognized for the hoax It truly is.
Dirck T.Hartmann is a retired Aerospace Engineer living in Huntington Beach, CA.
If there is any ignorance going on it is not on account of a badly skewed press, not the readers.
Make that: “If there is any ignorance going on it is on account of a badly skewed press, not the readers.”
Opie, you are long winded and boring. Let’s settle it.
“It is impossible to prove AGW. It *is* possible to disprove it, but never to prove it.”
And it has already disproven itself. Your models based on AGW “science” consistently show ocean and trop heating. Neither are happening. The models that don’t show ocean and trop warming don’t show significant ground level warming either. The best you people can now do is rant and try to modify data that, while not being perfect, are good enough.
[snip]
A large-scale hoax such as AGW is purported to be requires a conspiracy, at least at the top levels. There are thousands of people involved, so a large-scale hoax of this type requires organisation on a correspondingly large and secretive scale.
No, all it requires is a group of people who may sincerely beleive they are right but are not. History is replete with examples.
Tom in Texas (17:41:45)
Here is exert from NSA. Please read carefully.
“As just mentioned, a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide (from the pre-Industrial value of 280 parts per million) in the global atmosphere causes a forcing of 4 W/m2. The central value of the climate sensitivity to this change is a global average temperature increase of 3 °C (5.4 °F), but with a range from 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C (2.7 to 8.1 °F) (based on climate system models: see section 4). The central value of 3 °C is an amplification by a factor of 2.5 over the direct effect of 1.2 °C (2.2 °F). Well-documented climate changes during the history of Earth, especially the changes between the last major ice age (20,000 years ago) and the current warm period, imply that the climate sensitivity is near the 3 °C value. However, the true climate sensitivity remains uncertain, in part because it is difficult to model the effect of feedback. In particular, the magnitude and even the sign of the feedback can differ according to the composition, thickness, and altitude of the clouds, and some studies have suggested a lesser climate sensitivity.”
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, pp 6-7,
Committee on the Science of Climate Change
National Research Council
It doesn’t sound to me as a glowing endorsment to the “CO2 Drives the climate theory”.
People on the left claim…
As others have noted, I think it is a distraction to make the AGW issue into mainly a political one. If I am anywhere politically, it is on the left. But I do not think man made CO2 is driving any significant global warming (or “climate change”) if you will. This issue is a scientific issue. I am an engineer and amateur astronomer, and my judgement is that the Sun is the factor we should be interested in. The judgment is not founded in politics.
I am sure it is possible to show a diagram illustrating correlation between belief in AGW and political preferences, but as we all now correlation does not mean causation.
Or do you think a successuful political campaign could change the global temperatures? I don’t think so.
Smokey: “Following the debate, the audience was again questioned. The result: the majority had changed their minds, and rejected the AGW hypothesis. The skeptics won the debate.”
Yes, but the debate did not establish the truth of the wining proposition. All it established was that one side won the debate. Many in the audience may well have been intelligent, thoughtful individuals, but I doubt that many were climate scientists.
As far as I am aware, science is not decided by debate and polling the audience. It’s decided by the scientific method and the views of the relevant scientists. The people who demand public, formal debates will surely know this. In that case, their demand is more about wanting to sway the crowd and defeat their rivals than it is about pursuing the science.
Perhaps climate scientists should take part in public, moderated debates, but I suspect many are not well suited to that type of forum. And there are surely other forums where climate scientists can debate the science with their peers.
“There is only one reason that Hansen, the UN’s IPCC and others trumeting AGW refuse to publicly post their research: it is inaccurate and/or fraudulent. And they know it.”
I don’t know how these things work, but presumably there are ethics committees to look at scientific fraud, which I understand is taken very seriously. If you have evidence of fraud, you should place it before the relevant body,
“So please, Opie and Brendan, tell us just one thing: why do you think Hansen, the UN/IPCC, Mann, etc., refuse to show the public what the public paid for?”
Sorry, can’t answer that. I’m not familiar with the details.
Opie,
Evidence for my claim that many scientist are under threat.
Oregon Gov seeks to fire and pull title from George Taylor, Oregon State Climatologist.
Timothy Ball, Climatology University of Winnipeg, recieves multiple death threats from Global Warming proponents
Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology claimed: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.
Michael T. Eckhart, president of the environmental group the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), wrote in an email on July 13, 2007 to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI):
“It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.” In a July 16, Washington Times article, Eckhart confirmed that he did indeed write the email.
Robert F. Kennedy’s son, who grew hoarse from shouting. “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.
Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “bastards” who were members of what he termed the global warming “denial industry.”
VA Gov. Kaine had warned. Michaels not to use his official title in discussing his views. “I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist”
“What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act,” said Dr. Suzuki, a former board member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. “It’s an intergenerational crime in the face of all the knowledge and science from over 20 years.”
… Are you satisfied with the poppycock? Or do you want more examples of the Global Warming Inquistion?
Mockery, firing, forced resignations, demotions, proposals for trials, advocacy of jail time, banning from publication, withholding of funds are all things a Global Warming Skeptic will have to endure if he/she has an official title with real money and prestige on the line > unlike us weekend hackers
All the best to you Opie. I got your point about some plants are better with CO2 vs. all Plants. However, I’ll bet “some” plants equal 99% of all plants and you would be hard pressed to find a plant that does not do better than 400 ppm CO2 vs. 280 ppm. Please list a couple of plants if you know of any that would fit your criteria – I would find it very interesting despite our opposite viewpoints.
As far as I am aware, science is not decided by debate and polling the audience. It’s decided by the scientific method and the views of the relevant scientists. That’s right, Brendan, but in the case of AGW, that isn’t what happened: Global Warming: How It All Began
Climate science, which was in its infancy was taken over by by proponents of the AGW hypothesis, who used it for political and financial gain. The normal scientific process was sidestepped completely. Then the MSM began hyping it (alarmism sells), and the general public didn’t know what hit them, and of course believed it (for the most part).
presumably there are ethics committees to look at scientific fraud, which I understand is taken very seriously.
Not that I’m aware of. Even if there were one, I’m not sure it would be immune from politics, and would likely be rife with AGW supporters. When the AGW fraud is exposed, the fallout will be enormous, I’m afraid.
No, Brendan, not even close. Or did you miss the entire “oil money funding” accusation, repeated ad nauseum? The AGW crowd has been leveling accusations that their opposition was “hoaxing” the public pretty much since the discussion started.
So, no, it’s not exclusively the preserve of the skeptics. And extremely obviously so. You’re operating on your assumption that you’re right again.
Brendan H said:
“Many in the [debate] audience may well have been intelligent, thoughtful individuals, but I doubt that many were climate scientists.”
It becomes so tedious hearing someone with apparently no degree in either climatology or meteorology himself, criticizing intelligent individuals because they may not have a degree in those exact sciences. How would Brendan H know their level of education, anyway? Brendan H may nitpick the following individuals, but the more neutral readers here – those interested in the actual science of climatology – might be interested in reading what highly educated climatologists and physicists have to say about the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming resulting from increases in carbon dioxide.
The following link is from one of the world’s foremost climatologists, who heads the Atmospheric Sciences department at M.I.T., which is one of the country’s premier science/engineering universities. Let’s hear what he has to say about the alleged AGW “consensus”: click.
For those interested, some of Dr. Lindzen’s peer-reviewed publications are listed here: click
Next, let’s hear from another Professor of Climatology, Dr. Timothy Ball: click
The AGW climate deceivers/alarmists were so upset over Professor Ball’s challenging of the AGW/disaster hypothesis that they mounted an online campaign alleging that Prof. Ball has no degree in Climatology. Here is Ball’s response: click
Next, we have Professor Freeman Dyson, who is not a climatologist, but he is a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. Anyone with a PhD in Physics is welcome to dispute Dr. Dyson, who states that “…all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.”
Freeman Dyson continues his essay here: click
The following comments are by climatologist Richard Lindzen, on the intimidation of scientists who dare to question AGW: click
Then we have another highly educated scientist, Dr. Tim Patterson, who provides a much more likely cause of the minor warming over the past century than the slight fluctuations in the less than the four-one hundreths of one percent of the atmosphere that is CO2: click
Another article by Dr. Lindzen, pointing out the fallacy in conflating “science” and “consensus”: click
Finally, an article on the “hockey stick” deception by James Hansen’s protege, Michael Mann. Mann’s “hockey stick” graph was used by the UN/IPCC as an outright AGW/global warming scare tactic. It has now been so decisively discredited that the UN/IPCC has completely eliminated any mention of it: click
Notice that all the arm-waving about AGW by folks like Brendan H and Opie are based on their conjecture and opinion. They typically nitpick a selected sentence, or they use ad hominem attacks against professors of climatology at top tier universities, because they are personally incapable of credibly refuting the science.
The empirical [real world] evidence currently points to global cooling, not warming — and certainly not catastrophic AGW [the hypothesis essential to generating grant money, which is what AGW is all about].
Most readers here are open to any proof of catastrophic AGW — if anyone is able to provide it. In the mean time, I lean toward the educated analysis of the climatologists and physicists mentioned above, over the unfounded armchair opinions of those still pushing the AGW/CO2/global catastrophe hype.
Bruce Cobb: “That’s right, Brendan, but in the case of AGW, that isn’t what happened…”
This brief history focuses almost exclusively on Margaret Thatcher and ignores the extensive early work in climate science, which began to take off in the 1950s. By the time Thatcher came on the scene the scientific work was well under way. Nor does the Thatcher claim explain the extensive research work in the United States and elsewhere, places beyond the reach of her political authority. A history of the early years of AGW will show that the initiative came primarily from climate scientists rather than politicians.
But you will know all that, because as a sceptic you will have researched the subject rather than taken someone else’s word as gospel.
“Even if there were one, I’m not sure it would be immune from politics, and would likely be rife with AGW supporters. When the AGW fraud is exposed, the fallout will be enormous, I’m afraid.”
You imply a total corruption within science. Is this likely? What sort of fallout do you have in mind?
Merovign: “Or did you miss the entire “oil money funding” accusation, repeated ad nauseum?”
That’s an ad hominen, if used to discredit a sceptic’s arguments. A hoax is a positive thesis, not a mere gainsaying. The aim of the hoaxer is to persuade others to believe in something that the hoaxer knows is false, not to persuade others to doubt something that may or may not be known to be true. The latter is plain deception, not a hoax.
Smokey: “How would Brendan H know their level of education, anyway?
I don’t. But it’s a reasonable assumption that most of the audience were not climate scientists, unless that part of the world produces a disproportionate numbers of such scientists.
“…highly educated climatologists and physicists have to say about the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming resulting from increases in carbon dioxide.”
Straw man. Not all AGW scientists argue for “catastrophic” AGW. IPCC reports certainly apply many caveats. And even some sceptics, such as Lindzen, accept AGW, but dispute the potential effects. The fact that a few well qualified climate scientists dispute global warming or its effects establishes nothing. The general view is that the evidence for AGW is convincing. Majorities are not always right, but it’s more likely that, over time, scientists offering a range of views will provide a more reliable judgment than the odd contrarian.
As I say, for the layperson this issue ultimately comes down to: which scientists do I believe? Time will tell which are right, and we may be in for some surprises, but to date the evidence supports AGW.
“Finally, an article on the “hockey stick” deception by James Hansen’s protege, Michael Mann.”
As I understand it, deception in science is regarded as a very serious matter. It can kill a scientist’s career. If you have any evidence of deception you should take it to the relevant authority.
“The empirical [real world] evidence currently points to global cooling, not warming — and certainly not catastrophic AGW…”
According to a graph on this site, the last ten years have been the warmest in the past 30 years. In other words, the trend of global temperatures has been upwards, and current temperatures are consistently elevated above earlier decades.
A history of the early years of AGW will show that the initiative came primarily from climate scientists rather than politicians.
My point, which you conveniently overlooked, and which you would know if you had bothered to look at the link was that the AGW hypothesis didn’t take off until Thatcher started pushing it, and both she and her UK political party had a lot to gain by doing so.
You imply a total corruption within science. Is this likely? What sort of fallout do you have in mind?
Yes indeed, Brendan, climate science has been corrupted by the AGW hypothesis, for the very reasons already stated, but you, as an AGW Believer wish to ignore that. The AGW hypothesis is a dying one, and is only propped up now by politicians, by the MSM, and by pseudoscientists like Hansen, as well as others who are on the AGW gravy train. Well, guess what? That gravy train is being derailed, as well it should be. The consequences will not be pretty, believe me.
Bruce Cobb: “…the AGW hypothesis didn’t take off until Thatcher started pushing it…”
As I say, this explanation ignores the substantial amount of scientific study of AGW before Thatcher began to speak publicly on the matter in the late 1980s. In 1983 the National Academy of Sciences released a report estimating the warming effects of increased CO2 on atmospheric temperatures, and a US Environmental Protection Agency study estimated possible environmental and economic effects.
In 1985, an international conference of scientists warned of future atmospheric warming due to emissions, and the IPCC was formed in 1988. So Margaret Thatcher was one of the voices that helped to bring the matter to the attention of the public and other politicians, and she also helped create an institution to research the subject. But the claim, or at least implication, that AGW was the whole-cloth creation of politicians, and one politician in particular, is false.
“That gravy train is being derailed…The consequences will not be pretty, believe me.”
No train derailment is pretty. I notice you have a fondness for the darkly prophetic hint of imminent apocalypse. Sounds rather alarming.
Brendan, you are being disingenuous about the history of AGW. You keep talking about the mid to late 80’s, which is when AGW was already well on its way. I repeat, Thatcher used the issue to gain political power, beginning in 1979, campaigning about it at summit meetings. She was aided and abetted by her UK political party, who had their political reasons as well. Soon, politicians from many other countries, seeing an economic advantage to their countries, joined the bandwagon. The truth or falsity of AGW had nothing to do with it then, and that remains the case today. AGW is now a multi-billion dollar industry based on a fraudulent claim; that man’s C02 is harmful, and driving climate change.
Bruce Cobb; “I repeat, Thatcher used the issue to gain political power, beginning in 1979…”
What is your evidence for this claim?
The “left-right / motive / hoax / fraud / conspiracy / he doesn’t know what he’s talking about / he’s not qualified to say” points are all jolly amusing but they really don’t add up to a hill of beans (I’m off to the US in a few weeks, so thought I’d practice my American-English with “hill of beans”).
What matters is the evidence.
I’m a lawyer not a scientist, so I am not qualified to assess much of the technical scientific research; but I am qualified to judge whether I am satisfied by the evidence put forward. I can only judge it for myself not for anyone else, I can only judge it by applying my notions of common sense and I bear in mind at all times that others might disagree with my conclusions. Where I read of others disagreeing with my conclusions I weigh-up the points they make and see whether they cause me to change my mind either wholly or in part.
If there is evidence that someone might have a personal motive for reaching a particular conclusion one might feel it necessary to examine the evidence more closely for fear that his motive might skew his stated conclusion; yet if that evidence supports the conclusion then his motive falls away. If the evidence does not support his conclusion then it matters not a jot whether the conclusions have resulted from the application of a biasing motive or a simple arithmetical error.
In the article cited here Mr Hartmann criticises the AGW theory as a construct of the political left, but he seems to do so linguistically not substantively. First he sets out his arguments on the evidence (as he has assessed it) and then he attributes motive ex post facto. As I understand his article he does not say “Mr Gore and his friends are lefties therefore I dismiss their propositions.” Rather he says “I dismiss their propositions because I believe them to be unsupported by evidence and I believe the reason they put forward conclusions unsupported by evidence is because they are lefties seeking to promote a political cause.” His attribution of motive makes no difference to the accuracy or inaccuracy of his analysis of the evidence.
Mr Gore’s case does not get stronger if he is proved not to be a lefty, nor does it fail simply he is proved to be a lefty, it stands or falls on the merits of the evidence he puts forward.
When we examine whether a conclusion is supported by the available evidence we use various analytical tools. One of the most common is to examine how the conclusion has been reached.
If a witness says “I was at Waterloo Railway Station in London at 6pm” I might ask him what he did during the day and how he reached Waterloo Station. If he were to say “I had tea with my friend in Islington, North London, and took the number 73 bus at 5.50pm straight to Waterloo” I know his conclusion is not matched by the path of his evidence – quite literally in this example because the number 73 bus does not go to Waterloo and the most direct route by road takes at least 20 minutes. His conclusion fails because the steps which he says lead to that conclusion are not consistent with it. It is a simple technique which underlays much cross-examination in courts around the world.
Another analytical technique is to see whether the proponent of a conclusion has, when challenged, said or done anything to obstruct independent investigation into the issue. Let us assume that John Doe submits a claim for expenses to his employer. The employer does not usually requires receipts but sometimes asks for them. When John Doe is asked to provide a receipt for the cost of an aeroplane flight he says “you don’t need a receipt you can trust me”, when pressed he repeats the same words. The employer knows there will be a paper-trial proving one way or the other whether John Doe took the flight, his attempted obstruction of the investigation causes suspicion. It might well be that paperwork is produced when the employer insists, but in the meantime there is suspicion which causes the investigation to be pursued not abandoned.
Applying the first of these two simple analytical techniques to the conclusions which Mr Gore and the IPCC ask us to accept, I find it very difficult to accept them. The path they take in order to reach their conclusions is littered with serious questions about: (i) the temperature measurements they have relied on, (ii) their apparent dismissal of the sun as a major factor in variable average earth temperatures, (iii) their assertion that rises in temperature follow chronologically from rises in CO2 levels when the opposite appears to be the case, (iv) their absence of explanation for the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age, (v) their reliance on models which have consistently failed to reflect what has actually happened since they were set up and many other matters. This does not mean, to my mind, that their conclusions are wrong, but it does lead me to have serious doubts that their conclusions follow from the path of supporting evidence on which they rely.
I then ask myself what I should make of the assertions: “the debate is over” and “the science is settled”. In one way that is easy, debate is never over on anything ever; science is never settled on anything ever. Not once. Not now, not yesterday, not last year, not in the distant past, not tomorrow, not next year, not ever, never, never, never; lest there be any doubt, I mean never.
Did Mr Gore make these absurd statements because he believes them to be true? Did he make them in order to try to maximise the life of his highly profitable lecturing business? Did he make them because he believes the evidence he relies on not to support his conclusions? Were they just soundbites thrown out during a speech and thought to be persuasive but substantively meaningless?
I don’t know the answers to these questions, but what I do know is that seeking to stifle debate makes me suspicious. Indeed, I only started looking into the whole AGW “thing” when I heard Mr Gore tell me I shouldn’t. His assertions made me question his motive and thereby required me to look at the evidence. But that is the only place motive has in a debate such as this – whatever his motive might be, his evidence stands or falls by itself.
Mr Hartmann’s paper is not conclusive it is just another piece of the argument. Make of it what you will. Criticise his scientific propositions if you can do so on the basis of evidence. Criticise his conclusions if you believe they do not follow from his scientific propositions. But do not try to dismiss his case on the basis of motive, all you will achieve is to damage your own credibility.
http://www.thefatbigot.blogspot.com
FatBigot: “As I understand his article he does not say “Mr Gore and his friends are lefties therefore I dismiss their propositions.”
I have not questioned Hartmann’s motives, merely pointed out the flaws in his argument. Nor have I accused him of advancing an ad hominen argument. Whether or not he did so had nothing to do with my objections over his claim that AGW is a hoax. And my objections had nothing to do with Hartmann’s claim that the hoax is leftist. My objection would still apply if he claimed AGW was a rightist or centrist hoax.
But since you’ve raised the ad hominen issue, take this statement from the article:
“The IPCC uses the hoax of man made global warming to increase its power and that of a corrupt, anti-American United Nations…”
The argument here is that the IPCC is pushing a scientific hoax in order to gain power. That is quite clearly an ad hominen argument: the IPCC desires power, therefore AGW is false. So, yes, Hartmann is playing the man. Am I invoking motive to dismiss his argument? No. I’m merely applying a simple analytical technique to critique his argument.
(As an aside, it’s unavoidable that ‘sceptic’ has now become a mark of identity rather than a stance towards the evidence. For my money, what we should be aiming for is ‘critical thinking’ rather than loyalty to one group or another. Not likely to happen, though.)
“No. I’m merely applying a simple analytical technique to critique his argument”
Perhaps applying those skills to the IPCC would helpful and those on the left that find their arguments so convincing.
Hmm… perhaps applying those types of skill before I post would help the sentence to make more sense.
What I meant to say…
Perhaps applying those skills to the IPCC and those on the left who find their arguments so convincing would be helpful.
“take this statement from the article:
“The IPCC uses the hoax of man made global warming to increase its power and that of a corrupt, anti-American United Nations…”
The argument here is that the IPCC is pushing a scientific hoax in order to gain power. That is quite clearly an ad hominen argument: the IPCC desires power, therefore AGW is false. So, yes, Hartmann is playing the man. Am I invoking motive to dismiss his argument? No. I’m merely applying a simple analytical technique to critique his argument.”
You make a fair point Mr Brendan, although I do not see that extract from Mr Hartmann’s article as part of his scientific analysis. His analysis is that the IPCC skewed the evidence and here he seeks to give an explanation why they did so.
In the end it seems to me to make no difference to the substance of a point whether it includes a personal attack and/or an attribution of ill-motive. If someone tells me a cricket ball is square I could answer him by saying “you are wrong because you are a loathesome spotted reptile” or I could produce a cricket ball from my pocket to demonstrate his error (I don’t always carry one, but I am English so I do from time to time). His proposition is either right or wrong and, therefore, my repudiation of it is either wrong or right based on fact not on the way he presents it or the way I attack it.
I agree entirely with your “aside”, but we have to bear in mind that the science of Mr Gore’s theory is one part only of the equation. If we accept that human activity is causing the planet to warm we must then examine three other things: (i) what the consequences of that warming will be, (ii) what steps we can take to reduce warming and (iii) what effect those steps will have on our material standard of living and way of life.
We each have to balance whether the detriment we suffer by changing our ways (if we perceive it to be a detriment at all) is outweighed by the resultant benefit. This exercise is not a matter of science, rather it is a very personal judgment, one could describe it as a political judgment. The greater the perceived detriment the less inclined we will be to suffer it unless we really have to. If a hole in a wall of my house might allow a beetle to enter I am less inclined to fill the hole than if the potential intruder is a rat.
I believe this explains why the AGW debate tends to be a left-right argument. As a (very) general rule those on the right value material comforts more than those on the left and those on the right value established institutions and practices more than those on the left. So if we are told “you must stop flying in aeroplanes or the world will boil” those on the right will, generally speaking, be more resistant to the command than those on the left. Those who want to continue flying will be more inclined to seek to undermine the evidence behind the proposition that “the world will boil” than those who see no detriment. This makes no difference to the accuracy of either side’s analysis of the science but it helps to explain why those who want the AGW theory to be wrong are inclined to apply a “lefty” tag to their opponents and vice versa.
And it doesn’t help that we all like to think we are more impartial and balanced than we really are (except me, of course).
http://www.thefatbigot.blogspot.com
Funny, here I thought the far right was those right-wing redneck poor religious southernersa and fly-over country mid-westerners and the far left was the wealthy aristocratic northeastern yankees and left-cost Californians.
FatBigot: “I agree entirely with your “aside”, but we have to bear in mind that the science of Mr Gore’s theory is one part only of the equation. If we accept that human activity is causing the planet to warm we must then examine three other things: (i) what the consequences of that warming will be, (ii) what steps we can take to reduce warming and (iii) what effect those steps will have on our material standard of living and way of life.”
You should have 4 bullets, the first being (i) Is human activity causing the planet to measurably warm? Then you can go on with the rest. I say the answer to the first bullet is no. So I can ignore the rest.
FatBigot: “In the end it seems to me to make no difference to the substance of a point whether it includes a personal attack and/or an attribution of ill-motive.”
Fair enough. But if the ad hominen is true it muddies the waters, and if it’s false the debater undermines his own argument.
“We each have to balance whether the detriment we suffer by changing our ways (if we perceive it to be a detriment at all) is outweighed by the resultant benefit.”
If AGW was a theory with few or no obvious implications for human wellbeing, it would probably be a matter of passionate debate among a few pointy-heads, and the rest of us could get on with our lives. But its implications are otherwise, so how we deal with it becomes a matter of our own judgement and negotiation with others – in other words, as you say, politics (with a small p).
My gut instinct on this is that Europeans are more in favour of political solutions than are the Anglo-American countries, and the US is less in favour of political solutions than the Anglo countries. But that judgement reflects my own bias that opposition to AGW is primarily ideological.
“As a (very) general rule those on the right value material comforts more than those on the left and those on the right value established institutions and practices more than those on the left.”
I’d say that leftists are more comfortable with government solutions, while rightists are more comfortable with market solutions. Fortunately, we don’t have to choose between the two, and government and market solutions can work in tandem.
“And it doesn’t help that we all like to think we are more impartial and balanced than we really are (except me, of course).”
Likewise.