This was a bit of a surprise, hat tip to Bucko36 – Anthony
In Science, Ignorance is Not Bliss
By Physicist Walter Cunningham, NASA Apollo 7 Astronaut in July/August 2008 Issue of Launch Magazine. http://launchmagonline.com/index.php/Viewpoint/In-Science-Ignorance-is-not-Bliss.html
Cunningham writes:
“NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused” warming
“[James] Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data contradict him.”
BIO Note: Physicist Walter Cunningham, an award-winning NASA Apollo 7 Astronaut, was the recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal and Navy Astronaut Wings, the 1969 Haley Astronautics Award and named to Named to the International Space Hall of Fame. Cunningham is a member of the American Geophysical Union and fellow of the American Astronautical Society. He also worked as a scientist for the RAND Corporation prior to joining NASA. While with RAND, he worked on classified defense studies and problems of the earth’s magnetosphere. He has accumulated more than 4,500 hours of flying time, including more than 3,400 in jet aircraft and 263 hours in space.
For Complete bio see: http://www.waltercunningham.com/introduction.htm
Excerpts:
It doesn’t help that NASA scientist James Hansen was one of the early alarmists claiming humans caused global warming. Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data contradict him. […] NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science. Advocacy is replacing objective evaluation of data, while scientific data is being ignored in favor of emotions and politics. […] I do see hopeful signs that some true believers are beginning to harbor doubts about AGW. Let’s hope that NASA can focus the global warming discussion back on scientific evidence before we perpetrate an economic disaster on ourselves.
[…] The fearmongers of global warming base their case on the correlation between CO2 and global temperature, even though we cannot be sure which is cause and which is effect. Historically, temperature increases have preceded high CO2 levels, and there have been periods when atmospheric CO2 levels were as much as 16 times what they are now, periods characterized not by warming but by glaciation. You might have to go back half a million years to match our current level of atmospheric CO2, but you only have to go back to the Medieval Warming Period, from the 10th to the 14th Century, to find an intense global warming episode, followed immediately by the drastic cooling of the Little Ice Age. Neither of these events were caused by variations in CO2 levels. Even though CO2 is a relatively minor constituent of “greenhouse gases,” alarmists have made it the whipping boy for global warming (probably because they know how fruitless it would be to propose controlling other principal constituents, H2O, CH4, and N2O). Since human activity does contribute a tiny portion of atmospheric CO2, they blame us for global warming.
[…] The reality is that atmospheric CO2 has a minimal impact on greenhouse gases and world temperature. Water vapor is responsible for 95 percent of the greenhouse effect. CO2 contributes just 3.6 percent, with human activity responsible for only 3.2 percent of that. That is why some studies claim CO2 levels are largely irrelevant to global warming. Without the greenhouse effect to keep our world warm, the planet would have an average temperature of minus 18 degrees Celsius. Because we do have it, the temperature is a comfortable plus 15 degrees Celsius. Based on the seasonal and geographic distribution of any projected warming, a good case can be made that a warmer average temperature would be even more beneficial for humans.
Full Text at link below:
http://launchmagonline.com/index.php/Viewpoint/In-Science-Ignorance-is-not-Bliss.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
randomengineer (22:07:34) :
I can take a joke. But when I laugh too much my unattainium starts to curdle, or solidify, or sublimate, or all 3 at once, or something. I forget. BTW, in the last few days learned how to obtain unobtainium. You just dig in the wrong place 19 times and then make an ensemble of the results!! 😉
Actually, I did not post my humor-impaired response because I wanted to pick on anybody or even suggest a silly limit on the levity of others. A few days back I tried to answer what I hoped was an honest question about what it would take to change my mind. My response to Andrew was just another attempt to outline an honest answer to that original question in case there are any AGW proponents who really want to know.
Hmm, lets see if this version works:
-However, I have read and heard so many AGW denialists accuse scientists of changing their results for political reasons – even of perpetrating a “hoax” – that it is having an effect on me.
-My grandmother told me, “it takes one to know one.” If anyone is not so fortunate, maybe they can look up ‘psychological projection.’ Either way — after years of these kinds of slanders, I personally find it very hard not to support the IPCC just because so many AGW denialists have exposed so much about themselves through their constant accusations.
-It would be a lot easier to convince me if one did not have to overcome the nagging (and continually reinforced) impression that a large number of AGW denialists are projecting their willingness and motivations to lie about science onto other people.
-So, go ahead, turn the tables and accuse me of projection, too. I can’t think of a better way to prove my point.
Makes sense.
Regarding your charges that the term “denier” is used because “it carries connotations of excusing wholesale mass murderers” I disagree, it’s convinient for denialists to make that claim as making such a link is used as a tool to demonise those supporting the mainstream IPCC position. Personally I use the terms “denier” and “denialist” as they’re accurate terms to apply to people who, as a result of motivations that have nothing to do with science, deny that AGW could be a problem, or even that it is actually occurring. Similarly I’m happy to refer to addicts of substances other than carbon as being “in denial” about their addiction, when I do so I’m not linking them to Holocaust denialism either.
-So, are AGW denialists really trying to change minds or just win meaningless debating points? Actually changing minds is going to require some drastic changes in attitude and language as well as being right about the science.
Hmm, that works too.
REPLY: Actually, no it doesn’t work, before you can understand anything , you’ll have to stop using the terms like, “denier and lie”. But it seems you are entrenched in that belief, so we won’t wast any time on “menaingless debating points” trying to convince you otherwise.
Nature will of course be the final arbiter, not the IPCC, which is a UN political body, not a scientific one.
“Dr. Martin Hertzberg is a combustion research scientist who
worked on the prevention of fires and explosions in mines and other
industries at the Bureau of Mines in Pittsburgh, PA. He also
contributed to our understanding of the fundamental mechanism of
combustion in gases and dusts. He currently teaches science and
mathematics at various educational institutions, and occasionally
consults as an expert on the causes of accidental fires and
explosions. He served as a meteorologist in the US Navy and has
been studying the global warming issue for the last twenty years.”
.http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hertzberg.pdf
He did not work for the coal industry, he was working, as an environmentalist, for a government agency that regulated the mining companies.
As for the graph of the depression, I suppose he could have shown the actual temps. instead of just a trend line. That would have realy shown the disconnect between CO2 and temp. since 1934 was the warmest year of the 20th century.
Personally I use the terms “denier” and “denialist” as they’re accurate terms to apply to people who, as a result of motivations that have nothing to do with science, deny that AGW could be a problem, or even that it is actually occurring.
That is rich, Andrew. You have it exactly backwards, of course, living in the fantasy world of AGW pseudo-science as you do. It is precisely the AGWers who are motivated by anything but science, be it greed, political power, peer pressure, herd mentality, ego, emotional instability, or any combination thereof. Nice try, though.
Sorry that I didn’t stick around yesterday to make these posts,but at my age I need a lot of rest.
During the 1950″s, a lot of neuclear bombs were tested. Each test produced a large quantity of carbon14, which reacted with the ozone to create radioactive CO2. ( C2+ 4O3= 2CO2+4O2 ) In about five years the radioactive CO2 had droped to normal levels. Since C12 and C14 are chemicaly identical, they were absorbed into plants and other CO2 sinks at the same rate. As an anthropoligist I am interested in any variations of C14, since that is used in dating organic items from the past.
C14 is formed by high energy particles, such as cosmic rays, alpha and beta patricles. When these particles move through the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons. The resulting neutrons (1n) participate in the following reaction:1n + 14N = 14C + 1H.
“since 1934 was the warmest year of the 20th century.”
This is yet another of those false beliefs that go around and around on skeptic/denialist/whatever blogs. 1934 was the warmest year of the 20th century In the US, not globally.
In reply to the moderator: most of that comment of mine was simply taking jc stout’s (21:14:04) words and replacing the words “AGW proponent” with “AGW denialist”
I think it still made sense ie. his words cut both ways, but perhaps I should have used “skeptic” rather than “denialist”, his use of “proponent” was very considerate, it deserves a hat tip.
Andrew W
That is a very suspect point . If Paleoclimatologists can teleconnect a single stand of bristlecones with global temperatures, you would think that North America would be as well.
If you go to the beach and examine a handful of sand, it is a very good reflection of the the composition of sand on the rest of the beach.
The global record is polluted by stations in China which were moved and destroyed during the cultural revolution, stations in Russia where people may have lied about temperatures in order to increase their fuel allocation etc. The Global record is constantly fiddled with and adjusted, with little disclosure about methods. BTW, I don’t think South America or Africa show much warming since the 30’s either, so that term “Global” gets more and more suspect.
And that does not even take into account the poor state of the North American record (the most comprehensive in the world) in dealing with urban growth and encroachment, a topic being researched by our host.
Jeez, scientists across the AGW specrtum accept that warming has occurred throughout the 20th century, Spencer, Michaels, Carter included.
You yourself can “deny” that warming has occurred, you can come up with all sorts of “reasons” for your belief but people can do that with any “belief” from creationism, to flat Earth, whatever.
Your argument is not based in science, it’s contrary to the accepted science.
So why are you so strongly motivated to question the temperature records? What do you base your -I’m going to use the word that fits- denialism on?
The vast majority of that warming occurred in the the first 3 or 4 decades of the the 20th century, if not all of it.
So, if no warming has occurred since the 30’s in North America, South America, Africa, or Antarctica, you accept as gospel the definition of “global temperature” that relies solely on potentially suspect stations in Europe and Asia? Oh yeah, don’t even get me started on sea surface temperature “adjustments”.
I am skeptical. No issue in science has been this political since the concept of the Earth rotating around the sun. That is cause for suspicion. I’ll trust the North American records for now, as shoddy as they are.
Jeez
“No issue in science has been this political since the concept of the Earth rotating around the sun.”
I disagree, eugenics was the last really big science/political disaster. How many deaths did belief in eugenics cause? I would guess at least ten million. I’m sure someone has a better handle on the exact number than I do.
You might have me there.
Any July average temperatures out yet?
What the blazes!
We are heating up. We are not heating up.
Humans did it. Humans did not do it.
The El Nino effects alone, which we can all see indicates something is different.
Make up your minds guys.
Until the Earth’s average temperature rises 10 degrees and the oceans rise 50 feet and all the predicted “disasters” come to pass, the only intellectually honest term to characterize those not sold on the AGW hypothesis is “skeptic”. Anyone using the term “denier” is arrogating to himself an omniscience he simply has no business claiming – unless he has a time machine that allows him to travel 50 years in the future or just happens to be a living god. It’s impossible to “deny” something that hasn’t happened. In fact, I’m unaware of any prediction of the climate 50 years in the future that has ever been made or borne out successfully, so the track record on that sort of thing is entirely non-existent. Those who are all-fired certain of the future without possessing any documented predictive record to back it up (exactly what percentage of the previous 50 year predictions were correct?) might want to ruminate on that fact. Essentially, anyone using the term “denier” is being intellectually dishonest and ought rightly to be ignored.
The bottom line is you (AGW advocates) are proposing a hypothesis regarding the future. Others don’t think you’ve made a convincing case. That makes them skeptics of your assertion. The burden is on you to prove your case, not on them to accept it. You have no right to assume you are correct because you believe it and then use that as “proof” that someone is denying a reality that doesn’t exist.
Very well said KCOM, How can one deny a predicted future event? We are not climate change deniers, or even global warming deniers. We are catastrophic, global climate change skeptics. The earth has NOT catastrophically warmed. The seas have NOT catastrophically risen. Carbon dioxide has NOT caused any catastrophes. The earth still has floods and droughts, as always. We still have storms and sweet autumn nights, as always. We still have our facilities, our history and our ingenuity as we have always had.
We will adapt to any future climate changes, as we always have. Life is to be lived and enjoyed. We won’t let the boogieman keep us from living and conquering as we always have.
The catastrophes have always happened and we have always adapted and learned. As we learn more and more, deaths from weather catastrophes have become fewer and fewer. http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_23.pdf
When the storm is coming, get ready for it. You will not turn it away.
Adapting to Climate Diversity,
As always
Mike
First, let me say that the post by kcom above was superb. Awesome! May I thoroughly plagiarize it, kcom? I’ve been saying the same thing, but not nearly as well. Kudos for framing the debate correctly, and very clearly.
Andrew W, thank you for responding. I have to wonder, though, about something you asserted [well, several things, but for example]:
So a warming planet causes later releases of CO2. Accepted. Cause and effect. But then, in the very next paragraph you criticize Dr. Hertzberg for pointing out the same cause and effect:
As Dr. Hertzberg states in his referenced paper:
You’ll understand if I simply accept Dr. Hertzberg as the climate expert here.
Mike Bryant, great response to kcom. I missed it until after I’d posted above. The pro-AGW side is always trying to frame the argument, by calling skeptics “deniers” of climate change. As you pointed out, that is false. The climate changes naturally; always has, always will.
It’s worthwhile to call them on it when they imply that skeptics don’t believe in “climate change.” In fact, we believe in natural climate change a lot more than they do.
Global warming from 1976-1998 is an established observational scientific fact. Historic and future climate change is an established scientific fact. Accidental actions by nasty little apes are not the cause.
Smokey,
I prefer to call it climate diversity. After all diversity is a good thing. Variety is the spice of life. Even the word change has positive meanings. Obama surely knows that. However the warmers are ruining that lovely word, change.
Some have moved from the paradise island of Hawaii because they did not like the sameness of the climate there. (idiots) I like the word diversity so much better because it was not chosen by the brainwashers.
Weep not that the world changes–did it keep
A stable, changeless state, ’twere cause indeed to weep.
* William Cullen Bryant
Loving and Adapting to Climate Change
Mike Bryant (no relation)
Mike, noted. ‘Diversity.’
And re: “change,” a person can experience ‘change’ if they are thrown into San Quentin for life on a bogus charge.
It’s best for citizens to keep that in mind when contemplating change simply for the sake of change, no?
“May I thoroughly plagiarize it, kcom?”
Most certainly.
I’m not an expert on the scientific intricacies of climate science, but I do know a little bit about English and logic. And calling someone a denier of something that hasn’t happened makes no sense. Every time I see someone do it I get a little steamed. People who do that should be called on it every time.
kcom,
I hope you are female cause I think I love you. But anyhoo… I seldom repeat a rhyme but this one might add to your case about predicting the future and explain why doing so, so often fails.
I’d like to predict the future
but surely if I do,
the One who owns the future
might pull a switcheroo.
Smokey,
you seem to have missed the bit in my comment about the increased partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, it’s a little bit important as it seriously affects the net movement of CO2 between the atmosphere and oceans. I guess it’s not really surprising that Dr Hertzberg has also missed this point because, and despite you attributing the title to him, he isn’t a climate expert, as Ted Annonson has pointed out, he’s a combustion research scientist.
Everyone else, regarding all this sickening fawning over Kcom’s comment.
Kcom seems to be defining AGW as if and when “the Earth’s average temperature rises 10 degrees and the oceans rise 50 feet and all the predicted “disasters” come to pass.”
Well if that was the definition of AGW used on this planet I’d have to agree that the term “denier” was inappropriate, and I wouldn’t use it, but..
AGW is warming of the globe as a result of Man’s activities, both GH gas emissions and land use changes. We don’t have to wait for future events and possible disasters to unfold as AGW has been happening for some decades now, denial of observed changes, or that these changes are in large part due to Man’s activities, is what I refer to as “denialism”. Such “denialism” always seems to have a political or ideological foundation, otherwise few of you people would give a damn about AGW.
My personal position is that AGW is real, and is based on good science, but that assumptions that it must or will lead to catastrophic changes in climate are likely to some extent to be ideological based exaggerations.
Andrew,
In Texas we call that hogwash. No one here has denied that the earth has warmed. The only thing that concerns me is the “catastrophic” part. It is not true, But that is what is being used to try to scare the good people of this earth. We cannot deny a catastrophe that has not occurred.
It has also not been proven that man is the largest contributor to the climate variety, diversity and change that has occurred on this earth. I don’t deny that he has, but I would like to see some proof.
Responsibly anticipating and responding to all changes,
Mike Bryant
Oceans are cooling, earth temperatures are cooling, new science and satellite information is being revealed almost daily, maybe CO2 is NOT well mixed, the global warming adherents are so worried they have commited 300 million dollars to advertising, more and more climate scientists are speaking out on the probability that we are not likely to see catastrophic scenarios, histories are being uncovered that throw substantial doubt on AGW, many people are beginning to doubt the myth of climate catastrophe, even the chairman of the IPCC doesn’t believe he can make up for his own climate sins in six lifetimes, the religion is falling apart and people are returning to whatever gave them solace before this enormous hoax. Catastrophism is falling apart under it’s own weight. We’ve been fooled before but we won’t be fooled again.
Living Life and Loving It,
Mike Bryant