The science of deceit
Guest post by Dr. Bob Carter, originally posted at Quadrant online
Science is about simplicity
A well-accepted aphorism about science, in the context of difference of opinion between two points of view, is “Madam, you are entitled to your own interpretation, but not to your own facts”.
The world stoker of the fires of global warming alarmism, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), cleverly suborns this dictum in two ways.
First, the IPCC accepts advice from influential groups of scientists who treat the data that underpins their published climate interpretations (collected, of course, using public research funds) as their own private property, and refuse to release it to other scientists.
Thus, confronted in 1996 with a request that he provide a U.S. peer-review referee with a copy of the data that underpinned a research paper that he had submitted, U.K. Hadley Climate Research Centre scientist Tom Wigley responded:
First, it is entirely unnecessary to have original “raw” data in order to review a scientific document. I know of no case at all in which such data were required by or provided to a referee ….. Second, while the data in question [model output from the U.K. Hadley Centre’s climate model] were generated using taxpayer money, this was U.K. taxpayer money. U.S. scientists therefore have no a priori right to such data. Furthermore, these data belong to individual scientists who produced them, not to the IPCC, and it is up to those scientists to decide who they give their data to.
In the face of such attitudes, which treat the established mores of scientific trust and method with contempt, it is scarcely surprising that it took Canadian statistics expert Steve McIntyre many years to get the primary data released that was used by another Hadley Centre scientist, Keith Briffa, in his published tree-ring reconstructions of past temperature from the Urals region, northern hemisphere. When he finally forced the release of the relevant data, McIntyre quickly proceeded to slay a second climate hockey-stick dragon which – like the first such beast fashioned by U.S. scientist Michael Mann, and widely promulgated by the IPCC – turned out to be based on faulty statistical methodology (see summary by Ross McKitrick here).
A variant on this, along “the dog ate my homework” path, also involves the Hadley Centre – which is the primary science provider of global temperature statistics to the IPCC. Faced with requests from outside scientists for the provision of the raw temperature data so that scientific audit checks could be undertaken, Hadley’s Phil Jones recently asserted that parts of the raw data used to reconstruct their global temperature curve for the period before about 1980 cannot be provided to outsiders because it has been lost or destroyed. In other words, it is now impossible to conduct an independent audit of the Hadley temperature curve for 1860-2008, on which the IPCC has based an important part of its alarmist global warming advice.
So much for data perversions. The second type of common distortion of normal scientific practice by the IPCC and its supporters concerns not data but hypotheses – which IPCC likes to define in its own way to suit its own ends. This attitude often manifests itself in the fashion expressed in a recent letter sent to me, viz:
Proponents of AGW claim that their theory is supported by peer reviewed literature whilst the case against it is not. This is a very effective argument and, although Solomon’s book The Deniers goes some way to counter it, I am not aware of an equally effective refutation. If there is one I would be most grateful if you could point me to it.
In an Australian variation of this, Greg Combet, assistant to climate Minister Penny Wong, earlier this year asserted with blatant inaccuracy that “we use only peer reviewed science and our opposition doesn’t”. Other IPCC sycophants phrase it slightly differently, such as: “if you climate sceptics had a scientific point of view it would have been published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals“.
Statements such as these all reflect a fundamental lack of understanding about the way that science works. They also exemplify the way in which climate alarmists always seek to frame the debate in ways that delivers them control, especially by clever choice of language (clean energy; climate change instead of global warming; carbon dioxide is a pollutant instead of a beneficial trace gas, etc.), or, in this case, by framing a hypothesis for testing that suits their political ends rather than Science’s ends.
If you accept at face value questions and comments like the ones enumerated above, you fall into a carefully laid climate alarmist trap. For the question “why are there no papers in peer-reviewed journals that disprove the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming” is predicated, as is all related IPCC writing, on faulty science logic; specifically, it erects a wrong null hypothesis.
Scientists erect hypotheses to test based upon the fundamental science assumption of parsimony, or simplicity, sometimes grandly referred to as Occam’s Razor. That is to say, in seeking to explain matters of observation or experiment, a primary underlying principle is that the simplest explanation be sought; extraneous or complicating factors of interpretation, such as “extraterrestrials did it”, are only invoked when substantive evidence exists for such a complication.
Concerning the climate change that we observe around us today – which, importantly, is occurring at similar rates and magnitudes to that known to have occurred throughout the historical and geological past – the simplest (and therefore null) hypothesis, is that “the climate change observed today is natural unless and until evidence accrues otherwise”.
In regard to which, first, no such evidence has emerged. And, second, like any null hypothesis, that about modern climate change is there to be tested, as it has been. There are literally tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in major scientific journals that contain observations, data, experiments and theoretical reasoning that are consistent with the null hypothesis, which has therefore yet to be falsified (but, of course, one day might be).
The onus is therefore on Penny Wong and her scientists to provide some “evidence otherwise”. To give a clue how hard that task is, note that since 1988 (when the IPCC was created) western nations have spent more than $100 billion, and employed thousands of scientists, in attempts to measure the human signal in the global temperature record. The search has failed. Though no scientist doubts that humans influence climate at local level – causing both warmings (urban heat island effect) and coolings (land-use changes) – no definitive evidence has yet been discovered that a human influence is measurable, let alone dangerous, at global level. Rather, the human signal is lost in the noise of natural climate variation.
That the correct null hypothesis is the simplest hypothesis is, of course, no reason why other more complex hypotheses cannot be erected for testing. For instance, should you wish to test (as the IPCC should) the idea that “human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming”, then there are several ways that that can be done.
The result, long ago, has been the falsification of the dangerous human-caused warming hypothesis. Failed tests include: that global cooling has occurred since 1998 despite an increase in carbon dioxide of 5%; the lack of detailed correlation between the carbon dioxide and temperature records over the last 100 years; consideration of cause and effect timing of past carbon dioxide and temperature levels in ice core records; the absence of the model-predicted temperature hotspot high in the tropical troposphere; the low sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide forcing as judged against empirical tests; and the demonstrable failure of computer GCMs to predict future climate.
These matters, and that the dangerous warming hypothesis fails numerous empirical tests, have been described in many places. Such writings, whether in refereed journals or not, are simply disparaged or ignored by those who wish to pursue the alarmist IPCC line.
It bears repeating that the onus is on Minister Wong, or her advisory IPCC scientists, to provide any evidence that the null hypothesis regarding modern climate change is false. Because she cannot do so, the clever trick is used of inverting the null hypothesis to demand that climate rationalist scientists demonstrate that human-cased global warming is not occurring.
Perhaps none of this would matter particularly were we dealing only with a squabble amongst scientists. But when ministers in our governments write, as did the Queensland Minister for Climate Change recently, that “The Queensland Government, along with the Australian Government and governments around the world, supports the findings of the IPCC”, it becomes a critical matter of necessity to understand that, in addition to being political in the first place, IPCC advice is also based upon faulty, indeed manipulative, science practice.
As independent scientific advisors to Senator Fielding have shown, the IPCC-derived science advice that the Australian Government is using as the basis for its carbon dioxide tax legislation is utterly flawed. This finding has yet to be rebutted.
Senators who vote for the second version of the misbegotten and misnamed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bill will be supporting strongly harmful legislation that is based upon faulty science. Thereby, they will be abandoning their duty of care for the welfare of the Australian people.
DISCLOSURE: Bob Carter is one of the four independent climate scientists who, at Senator Fielding’s request, undertook a due diligence audit of the global warming advice being provided to Climate Minister Penny Wong by her Department. The three other scientists were David Evans, Stewart Franks and Bill Kininmonth.
Speaking of data – what is the status of Anthony’s analysis of the surface station data? I’m very much looking forward to his demonstrating that the observed warming is entirely an artifact of badly sited stations, and that the selected best stations show no warming.
Brilliant article from Alan Caruba again:
Government List Of Thing that Could Kill You
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/10/government-list-of-things-that-could.html
Just for the records:
This is the scientific study with the potential to kill the Global Warming Scare:
http://masterresource.org/?p=4307
I was just idly thinking about Aussie politicians and it occurred to me that being a Minister for Climate Change was akin to being a midwife or undertaker – you would never be out of work. The climate is always changing……. 🙂
Ron de Haan,
With the greatest respect, the AAM Hydra cannot and will not be killed with any amount of proof.
The AAM/AGW/MMCC narrative is political in nature using a veneer of highly selected science peddled by a willing mass media, if our political leaders were truly interested in the science they would be having nothing to do with the AAM narrative, in fact the political classes are in love with the narrative because it provides a cover for their real intentions of modifying our entire social structure while stripping real power away from ordinary people.
The political classes will not give up their dreams just because of a little thing like the truth, if the truth mattered to them in the slightest most of the major disasters of late would have never been embarked upon.
Of course that would not be necessary if the general public had a clue about history and science.
Friend, it would appear you are the general public. Let me explain. Wegner was rejected by Bowie, America’s most vocal opponent of drift, who persuaded many other geologists to privilege the Hayford model and to ignore all the other data from stratigraphy, paleontology, paleo-climatology, etc. Sound familiar? The Hayford model was not consilient. One reason we know AGW is not wrong is because it is consilient: a preponderance of evidence from all directions converges on AGW. You have got your analogies and bromides backwards! As is obvious to any neutral observer who has enough wits to balance the mountains of actual research for AGW against the molehill of factoids presented on this site as an alternative to AGW, it is you deniers that are the latter-day Bowies and Edisons, not the climate scientists who did battle with the old scientific guard for decades in order to establish AGW. Y’all also seem oblivious to the fact that people like Pasteur and Tesla did not have the benefit of the modern review system — the same one that is denigrated daily on this site. How do deniers live with the cognitive dissonance??
PS I think open science is a laudable goal, data should be archived, but the sub- and overt text of this post and the comments under it, that peer review is supposed to detect fraud, is simply wrong. Peer review was designed to discover errors and original, important research, not to detect fraud. Modern science is based on a network of trust, and for this reason precisely has proved itself remarkably successful compared to science in the days of Galileo etc. I would counsel you look more deeply into the sociology of science and to be careful what you wish for if you want to replace its wildly successful community standards with a system of antagonistic and/or unqualified auditors.
Of course that would not be necessary if the general public had a clue about history and science.
Friend, it would appear you are the general public. Let me explain. Wegner was rejected by Bowie, America’s most vocal opponent of drift, who persuaded many other geologists to privilege the Hayford model and to ignore all the other data from stratigraphy, paleontology, paleo-climatology, etc. Sound familiar? The Hayford model was not consilient. One reason we know AGW is not wrong is because it is consilient: a preponderance of evidence from all directions converges on AGW. You have got your analogies and bromides backwards! As is obvious to any neutral observer who has enough wits to balance the mountains of actual research for AGW against the molehill of factoids presented on this site as an alternative to AGW, it is you deniers that are the latter-day Bowies and Edisons, not the climate scientists who did battle with the old scientific guard for decades in order to establish AGW. Y’all also seem oblivious to the fact that people like Pasteur and Tesla did not have the benefit of the modern review system — the same one that is denigrated daily on this site. How do deniers live with the cognitive dissonance??
PS I think open science is a laudable goal, data should be archived, but the sub- and overt text of this post and the comments under it, that peer review is supposed to detect fraud, is simply wrong. Peer review was designed to discover errors and original, important research, not to detect fraud. Modern science is based on a network of trust, and for this reason precisely has proved itself remarkably successful compared to science in the days of Galileo etc. I would counsel you look more deeply into the sociology of science and to be careful what you wish for if you want to replace its wildly successful community standards with a system of antagonistic and/or unqualified auditors.
Just thought you’d be amused about the British Science Museum’s recent Prove it poll http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
Last night when I went to bed at it was 545 count me in’s and 3985 count me out’s. This morning when I looked it was 3883 count me in’s and 4603 count me out’s.
The extra 3338 extra “count me in” votes appeared like magic overnight. Isn’t that interesting? How do they do this sort of thing?
Excellent article full of pithy truths.
I detailed the shameful way that Hadley Centre had become a part of the political process, and that since 2005 the political process had deliberately used ‘science’ to carry out its attempts at social engineering, in my recent arrticle.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/20/revealed-the-uk-government-strategy-for-personal-carbon-rations/#more-11896
As a Brit I am ashamed at the way my Government has manipulated the climate agenda, and astonished that other countries have not been more objective when looking at the data.
Tonyb
This article is a shabby and twisted piece of writing from someone who appears intelligent enough to know better.
As just one example, the following is a strange passage indeed from Dr Carter…
“… the simplest (and therefore null) hypothesis, is that “the climate change observed today is natural unless and until evidence accrues otherwise”.
In regard to which, first, no such evidence has emerged. And, second, like any null hypothesis, that about modern climate change is there to be tested, as it has been. There are literally tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in major scientific journals that contain observations, data, experiments and theoretical reasoning that are consistent with the null hypothesis, which has therefore yet to be falsified (but, of course, one day might be).”
In regard to his first point, the rising concentration of the greenhouse gas CO2 in the atmosphere, with the approximate rate and isotopic composition expected from human emissions, is most certainly “evidence” for a non-natural contribution to the global warming. Dr Carter may argue over whether or not that evidence is convincing, but it insults the intelligence to pretend it is not evidence.
His second point is simply a logical fallacy. (A non sequitur argument – his conclusion does not follow from his premises.) There are also “literally tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in major scientific journals that contain observations, data, experiments and theoretical reasoning that are consistent with” the hypothesis that the moon is made of green cheese. In neither case does the existence of ‘consistent’ papers show that the hypothesis has not been falsified.
Paul Linsay (19:49:12) :
“Off the top of my head, a list of some scientists whose work was never peer reviewed before publication. Add your own.
Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, Hooke, Cavendish, Volta, Ampere, Ohm, Oersted, Faraday, Henry, Hamilton, Maxwell, Lorentz, Minkowsky, Poincare, Einstein.”
Don’t matter. The point is that their work – which was ground breaking in its day – can be verified today, because the method and the data was published.
Off the top of my head: “No amount of experimentation can prove me correct, but just one experiment can prove me wrong” – Albert Einstein.
Now, THAT is the scientific method.
Shurley Knot – so important you had to “counsel” us twice. Looks just like a sermon. Walks like a sermon. In short sir, a duck. Contains not a whit of evidence for the hypothesis you so willingly bow to.
That is all us “deniers” need. ONE, single, solitary item of repeatable science that shows the meagre amount of CO2 present in atmosphere is a danger to … well anything.
I think you may find that most of us came here from the “neutral observer” arena.
Proffer this evidence of yours. Please. Many of us have been waiting for a long time to see it.
Shurley Knot (00:43:42) :One reason we know AGW is not wrong is because it is consilient: a preponderance of evidence from all directions converges on AGW. What a load of hogwash and BS!
Answer my post and Dr Carters instead of delving into a load of hogwash about analogies. What is the “preponderance of evidence” against the null hypothesis?
PS I think open science is a laudable goal, data should be archived, You do?? Hallelujah!..
BUT the sub- and overt text of this post and the comments under it, that peer review is supposed to detect fraud, is simply wrong. Peer review was designed to discover errors and original, important research, not to detect fraud. Modern science is based on a network of trust, and for this reason precisely has proved itself remarkably successful compared to science in the days of Galileo etc.
What a load of unmitigated hogwash!
Science is not based on trust. I would rather trust a hissing cobra than the cherubic deceitful smile of Michael Mann. Science is based on questioning, inquiry and testing. And if fraud is discovered then science demands it be exposed not hidden and excused.
How on earth can you “peer review” when the original data is withheld and hidden? “Peer review” does not mean an old boys network of mutual backslappers who “peer review” each others papers as is happening with the hockey stick gang.
David Walton (18:31:37) :
Quote – “With ethical scientists like Dr. Bob Carter speaking out, the scientific method and the reputation of science as a whole may survive the extreme damage and disservice done to it by IPCC, Hadley, and GISS activists, charlatans, and frauds.”
You, the Deniers, are on the losing ground of “science workers”. In communist countries behind iron curtain a newtalk’s expression was concocted many years ago.
Instead of “scientists” we were to use “science workers” (direct translation: workers of science).
Any known words such as “activists, charlatans, and frauds” will change nothing. Why not use “fraudulers/fraudulards” or “anti-deniers”?
Why not “carbonizers” (burning down citizens’ future) or “carbonards” (carbon + retards) for AGW and cap’n’trade activists?
What about “datards”? (for CRU’s fraudulers and other covert data keepers or kapers)
You can use also old words like Hudley CRU “privateers” for keeping the climate data unlawfully closed.
If the deniers will not learn to fight the same methods as carbonards all their efforts would be futile. Signum temporis. AGW is of climate and of mud, you cannot use white gloves only. The more so the AGW is replete with POLITICS.
Best regards
P.S. I opt for carbonards. 😉
Malcolm Hill (19:31:43) :
“… would be doing the tax payer a real service, by at least bothering to do some home work before they display their own biases and at times, outright rudeness.”
Given the topic, shouldn’t this be “outright Ruddness”?
Partington (00:54:14) : Just thought you’d be amused about the British Science Museum’s recent Prove it poll http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
Last night when I went to bed at it was 545 count me in’s and 3985 count me out’s. This morning when I looked it was 3883 count me in’s and 4603 count me out’s.
The extra 3338 extra “count me in” votes appeared like magic overnight. Isn’t that interesting? How do they do this sort of thing?
I just went to the site and when I clicked on the count me out got this mesage from my antivirus – darn lost it – anyway seemed to be a worm at the site.
There are a few very outspoken, well extremely rude, vituperative and increasingly shrill bloggers in Australia who would do well to read this. I wonder if Marcus and Philip M will comment here? I very much hope so, so that their strident rudeness, perhaps generated by fear for their comfortable research projects, can gain a more global exposure. Australia is almost certain to sign a cap and trade type policy as the populace is in thrall to those who exploit the fears of children to pursue their political ends via pseudo-science.
The real question that should be asked of the politicians and their advisors is
“are you aware that the IPCC itself is unsure that human made greenhouse gases are the cause of climate change?”
or
“The IPCC itself says that there is a 10 percent chance that something other than human made greenhouse gases may be the cause of climate change, what are you doing to cover that possibility?”
Most of the posters and commenters here seem to assume that the IPCC’s position is one of certainty. That is helping the alarmist’s case.
The problem is that a false certainty has been built on top of the IPCC’s more cautious words.
Attacking the IPCC itself is of less value than trying to get the Wongs and Waxmans of the world to admit that there is uncertainty in the picture.
This is a good article. It explains a lot. I’ve encountered what Bob talks about with people who aren’t even scientists, but who believe the alarmist polemic. One of them is an opinion columnist for my local paper. It pissed me off royally when I first encountered it, because they spoke with authority and acted like they could get away with it.
I thought they were thinking of science as a narrative, but Bob is right. In their mind the simple theories, even if they’re untested, are the truthful ones. The complicated theories are just attempts to confuse people. They tried to make *me* out as someone who didn’t understand the science. They said that AGW was as obvious as the Earth being round, and that attempting to contradict it was as bad as claiming the Earth was flat. I had not read the right sources, and the right criticisms of those who were trying to “confuse” people. They pointed to a few scientific findings as “proof” (they weren’t), but as I talked to them for a while, it seemed like to them the scientific method was beside the point!
I was able to get to deeper layers of belief. First, they made weak attempts to discredit the scientific method, and certain scientific principles, saying things like, “You’re saying that because we don’t know everything, we can’t know anything,” which I didn’t say at all. I said the same thing that any scientist would say, “Show me the evidence of the interaction you claim is taking place.” Another was, “The atmosphere is not so chaotic. If that were the case we’d have spring in the Antarctic,” which revealed an ignorance of chaos theory.
Another one they tried, which I’ve heard before in support of GCMs as strong indicators of evidence is, “We only have one Earth. We don’t have a control. We need models to determine what’s going on,” to which I said, “We can observe the Earth. To use your reasoning *any* conclusion is possible, because you’re saying it’s impossible to make real observations. It’s literally possible to make a computer model say *anything*! What sense does it make to use such a model for your observations?”
The big thing I noticed was they could not accept the answer as being “I don’t know.” They required an answer, no matter how flimsy it was, and they’d defend it to the death.
Finally we got to the core of it. One finally said that if we waited for the scientists to make up their mind we would never get anything done. He said he didn’t want to wait for that. The simple theory, which in his mind seemed to be a “good enough” explanation, was all he needed. He had this compelling need to act. Gosh, I suppose if I had used Dawkins’s example of the “flying spaghetti monster” (or manbearpig, take your pick) he could’ve been convinced to act on that myth as well. All he needed was a compelling cause.
What I finally realized was they didn’t understand what they were looking at, for one. They had done a lot of research in the justifications for their POV, and the criticisms of the science that contradicted it, but they didn’t have the first clue about how to think like scientists. They were misinterpreting the controversy as “science” vs. “deniers”, when it’s just normal scientific debate. What was baffling to me was they were the ones calling *me* stupid!! If there’s one thing that drives me up the wall it’s arrogant ignorance.
I’ve begun to wonder if these people are trained in this, or learn it from like-minded people. Bob’s description of the alarmist tactics are uncanny. I feel like I could’ve written this article from my own experience, though I would not have been able to be as precise. My compliments to Bob.
Folks… lets not feed the trolls.
Whilst I DO agree with proper peer review processes, I am also rather skeptical about the motives of others too.
I have had commercially valuable information stolen from my PC, in my own home, data generated in my own time about subjects which I did not work for my employer at the time. I know this because I tested the hypothesis at length by writing unflattering things about suspects on my PC and looking for reactions, reactions which could not happen if that information remained private, which of course on a private PC it should. They came up trumps……
It was stolen by those in other parts of the world, be that London UK or, most often, the USA. They worked in politics, the media, the financial community, medicine and the research world. Ho hum……
I can see the point of someone saying that they have collected a database for 20 years using UK money and be damned if they hand it over for zippo to the Yanks.
You’ll see it in sport too. We currently have two obnoxious consortia ‘owning’ Liverpool FC and Manchester Utd FC. Both raised huge debts to ‘buy’ the clubs, then transferred responsibility for the debts onto the clubs. Neither consortium knew anything about European football and it is arguable that their aim was and still is to get UK fans to pay for them to download all the accumulated knowledge of the UK’s football industry to take it Stateside to MLS.
I’m sure you’ll agree that there are arguments for being annoyed and self-righteous in suggesting that such behaviour is unacceptable. It’s not ILLEGAL right now. Due to our beliefs in ‘free markets’…..
Perhaps it should be??
The likely answer in my book in the climate arena: you need a global initiative to collect global data.
The question then becomes: what is more important? Academic freedom to publish or the rights of commercial organisations who may pay for bespoke information resulting from the global data?
No easy answers there, Professor Carter.
No sir.
Shurley Knot (00:44:58) :
“One reason we know AGW is not wrong is because it is consilient: a preponderance of evidence from all directions converges on AGW. ”
The word “consilience” has been discussed by various people but I would venture that in the context of Shurley’s posting she/he intends it to mean that various threads from many areas of study converge on to one correct solution. Sort of all roads lead to Rome.
I wonder if he/she could give some thought to the Hockey Stick paradigm in this context? You see the Hockey Stick’s purpose (I believe) was to do away with the middle age warm period and the little ice age – in effect to present a staight stick with a blade on the end.
So where can we find the threads leading to this conclusion? Not many that I can figure.
However, the alternative hypothesis has threads leading to it from history and archaeology, not to mention mention several scientific disciplines such as geology, astronomy and chemistry.
What do you reckon then Shurley?
In America we have millions upon millions of “low information” citizens. All these folks ever hear about is “man made global fire storms that will kill us all”. So how does the cool logic of real science win out with these voters?
Then you have the millions of voters who want it all to be true so that they may “save the planet” and thereby add meaning to their mundane and ordinary lives. It is hard to get people to even look at the evidence of fraud and data-manipulation if it goes against their secular religion.
Until it snows again here in Orlando, I don’t see making a lot of headway with these two important groups of voters.
Martin Mason,
You raise an interesting question. The second law of thermodynamics prevents heat flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body such that the cooler body looses heat and the warmer body gains heat. However, it does not mean that a photon of energy cannot be emitted from a cooler body and be absorbed by a warmer body. Indeed, the Stefan-Boltzmann equations tells us exactly how much energy will radiate from a body of a given temperature.
But you have to look at the bigger picture. Although a photon will be radiated from the cooler to the warmer, the latter will radiate MORE photon’s back to the cooler. The net result is that the cooler body gains more energy than the warmer body, and their temperatures will converge.
As an analogy, we can consider gases passing energy by particle collision instead. Your question here would be “can a molecule of cool gas pass it’s energy to a molecule of warmer gas?” The answer is yes. Out of all the millions of molecules of gas colliding with each other, there will be some of low energy that collide with faster moving particles such that the faster moving gains energy and the slower looses energy. All the second law is saying is that the NET result is that in aggregate, the warmer particles will give up energy to the cooler particles until they become the same.
S. Wing
“In regard to his first point, the rising concentration of the greenhouse gas CO2 in the atmosphere, with the approximate rate and isotopic composition expected from human emissions, is most certainly “evidence” for a non-natural contribution to the global warming.”
Well, if you want to split hairs. I am sure that Bob is not trying to argue that there is zero contribution to warming from CO2. The point is that the IPCC argue that the overwhelming majority of twentieth century warming is caused by CO2 and yet the fact that CO2 has increased in the atmosphere is NOT evidence that it has caused this warming.
Or do you not agree with that? Are you arguing that the fact of CO2’s increase is evidence for most of the warming? Please clarify.
“His second point is simply a logical fallacy. (A non sequitur argument – his conclusion does not follow from his premises.) There are also “literally tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in major scientific journals that contain observations, data, experiments and theoretical reasoning that are consistent with” the hypothesis that the moon is made of green cheese. In neither case does the existence of ‘consistent’ papers show that the hypothesis has not been falsified ”
I think you are trying to be too clever for your own good. It contains the double negative “neither case” and “not been falsified”. At least, I don’t understand the point you are trying to make. Can you just speak plain English please?