Guest Post by Ira Glickstein.
What’s the difference between a whimsical fable and an environmental fallacy?
- On the outside, fables are light-hearted fibs. But oh so true on the inside.
- Environmental fallacies are just the opposite, serious and plausible on the outside but hiding egregious falsehoods on the inside.
Environmentalists have promoted the theory that human civilization is the main cause of global warming. They argue that Governments worldwide must take immediate drastic action to prevent a catastrophe. The chain of proof in their human-caused climate catastrophe theory is broken in at least six places:
Fossil fuels cause some air pollution, but the most dangerous air pollution comes from the fallacies uttered by environmentalists :^). If the voting public is misled by this kind of “environmentalist air pollution” our free economy will be destroyed, and with it, the most successful experiment so far of free peoples governing themselves. Only a High-Intellect Twit (HITwit), a person who is smart in some academic domain but quite foolish otherwise, could come up with and believe all these fallacies!
Environmental fallacy #1: Scientists have an accurate measure of warming since 1880.
Environmental fallacy #2: Human activities, primarily fossil fuels, are the main cause.
Environmental fallacy #3: Scientists can accurately predict future warming scenarios.
Environmental fallacy #4: Human-caused warming will lead to an environmental disaster.
Environmental fallacy #5: “Green” energy and conservation can replace most fossil fuel.
Environmental fallacy #6: Therefore, the Government must mandate and subsidize “green” energy to save our Planet.
Each of the above statements has a germ of truth that gives a patina of scientific validity to the argument, but none of them can stand close examination.
FALSEHOOD #1. Scientists have an accurate measure of warming since 1880, and it is at least 0.8⁰C.
The statement is false because the very US government-funded scientists charged with analyzing thermometer readings agree that their own past analyses are faulty, or that the raw data is of poor quality, or both. By their own admission, they have had to analyze and re-analyze the data multiple times. They have corrected their previous errors by more than plus or minus a quarter degree, altering the supposed warming trend by up to half a degree.
NASA GISS emails, released under the Freedom of Information Act, include one by climate scientist Makiko Sato [1] that details how official data, issued in 1999 for US mean surface temperatures, showed 1934 more than 0.5⁰C warmer than 1998. That result, indicating a strong cooling trend in the US, was, let us say, inconvenient for the case of a warming world. Sato details seven adjustments that cooled 1934 and warmed 1998 until, according to three 2007 analyses, they were nearly equal, a net change of more than half a degree. (Re-analysis continued after Sato’s 2007 email. According to the latest available reports [2], 1998 was 0.078⁰C warmer than 1934. Our tax dollars at work! The 1934 data is old enough to collect Social Security, yet they are still making it work for them.)
This is not a cherry-picked example. Starting in 2001, virtually all officially reported US temperatures prior to the 1970’s have been systematically adjusted down, thus exaggerating apparent warming. Temperatures after the 1970’s have been systematically adjusted up, further exaggerating the claimed warming. [3]
Apologists point out that this is only US surface temperature data and the US covers only about 2% of the Earth’s surface. However, if US data analyzed by US scientists has half a degree of “adjustment” slop in it, how much worse must worldwide data be? If the wiggle room in data analysis (0.5⁰C) is almost as large as what they claim to have measured (0.8⁰C), the official US, UK and other adjusted climate data has no scientific validity. It is anecdotal, at best.
The truth: The Earth has warmed a bit since 1880, but no more than 0.4⁰C.
FALSEHOOD #2. Human activities, primarily fossil fuels, are the main cause.
This statement is false because, even as carbon dioxide (CO2) levels continue their rapid exponential rise [4], global temperatures, as measured by satellite sensors [5] over the past dozen years, have stabilized and even dropped a bit. If CO2 was the main cause of temperature rise, temperatures would have had to go up over this period, at least a bit. They have not, which disproves the strength of the causal relationship. There must be other causes that are greater than burning fossil fuels.
The Truth: While human-caused CO2 and other “greenhouse” gases undoubtedly have effects on temperatures, they are not the main cause of recent warming. Human activities will not, indeed cannot, cause any kind of “tipping point” or “runaway” warming. It is becoming clear the main cause is natural cycles, such as Solar activity that modulates cosmic rays [6], and multi-decadal ocean oscillations, neither of which is under control or influence by humans.
One way to “lie with statistics” is to plot the data with an axis of the graph at an arbitrary value that exaggerates the variations. The figure below plots Temperature in Kelvin (above Absolute Zero) against CO2 levels referenced to zero, and indicates that Temperatures have remained quite stable as CO2 has gone up quite visibly.
FALSEHOOD #3. Scientists can accurately predict future warming scenarios.
This statement is false because official warming scenarios depend upon a misunderstanding of the nature and magnitude of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. ECS is how much temperatures will rise given a doubling of CO2.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assumes ECS is a mono-modal distribution with the most likely value lying between 2⁰C to 4.5⁰C, with an asymmetric “fat tail” that extends out to 10⁰C or higher, and with a single peak at 3⁰C. However, this conclusion is based on combining the results of ten separate studies, from 2001 through 2006, that are each quite different [7]. They peak at various temperatures, from 1.1⁰C to 3.8⁰C. Some of the study results hardly overlap. Indeed, the one thing they have in common is their “fat tails” that extend out beyond 6⁰C, which turns out to be impossible based on the limited glaciation of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM).
In 2011, Andreas Schmittner showed that ECS is multi-modal, with at least two separate peaks for data taken over land, and five separate peaks for over water [8]. A multi-modal distribution generally indicates that different populations have been conflated and, therefore, all bets are off with respect to the scientific validity of predictions of means that assume a mono-modal variable.
In addition, Schmittner showed that “fat tails” beyond about 6⁰C incorrectly retrodict the LGM as a totally frozen “snowball Earth”. However, it is well known that the LGM did not extend equatorwards beyond 40⁰ north and south latitudes. Thus, ECS-based models are not scientifically valid. [9]
The Truth: All else being equal, a doubling of CO2 levels will increase average temperatures by less than 1⁰C, and most likely less than 0.5⁰C. Climate models overestimate warming because they wrongly assume that clouds, on net, cause positive feedback. They also ignore the effect on cloud formation of cosmic ray modulation due to natural solar cycles.
Indeed, natural forces not under human control or influence are as likely to drive us into a period of global cooling as global warming. Future generations may come to thank us for the bit of added warmth due to our burning of fossil fuels.
FALSEHOOD #4. Human-caused warming will lead to an environmental disaster.
This statement is false because humans simply do not have the capability to cause more than relatively moderate warming and increases in CO2 levels that cannot imperil human civilization.
The Truth: The supposed disaster of global warming has been overhyped. As Climate-gate and other scandals have revealed, the temperature data have been diddled, the books cooked, and climate models have failed to predict the near-term future, much less the long term.
Predictions of imminent disaster due to human activities are overstated speculations at best. Recent moderate warming and CO2 increases are likely to be of net benefit to human civilization.
FALSEHOOD #5. “Green” energy and conservation can replace most fossil fuel.
This statement will be true at some time in the distant future because fossil fuels are not renewable and therefore cannot last forever. However, for the foreseeable future (a century or two) the statement is clearly false.
Hydroelectric and nuclear power are the two significant “green” sources that make economic sense now and into the forseeable future.
Technological developments have made offshore oil as well as oil sands and shale oil much more attractive than anyone predicted a decade ago. Fracking has driven the price of natural gas way down. Coal to gas, coal to liquid, and other new technologies will make coal, our most plentiful fossil fuel, both cleaner and cheaper.
So-called “green” energy has proven to be much more costly than fossil energy, and, except for some special cases, it cannot succeed in the marketplace without massive government mandates and subsidies.
The Truth: Fossil fuels will be our primary source of energy for many decades into the future, even as “green” energy slowly increases in importance. As fossil sources become scarcer and therefore more and more expensive compared to “green” sources, the energy industry will voluntarily switch to non-fossil energy and consumers will, in their own self-interest, embrace efficiency. To some limited extent that is happening now. It should be encouraged by allowing free market forces to do their magic.
FALSEHOOD #6. Therefore, the Government must mandate and subsidize “green” energy to save our Planet.
This statement is false because the underlying assumptions are false. Our Planet is not in danger. “Green” energy cannot replace most fossil sources in the foreseeable future. And, a “cure” based on Government mandates and subsidies will most likely be worse than the “disease”.
There is nothing inherently wrong with wind, solar, ethanol, or any of the other harebrained schemes the climate change authorities have seduced us into supporting with taxpayer funding. No, the problem is with the process of public funding that inevitably distorts true market forces. It is a process that in-errantly chooses exactly those solutions that benefit special interests while making the real problem worse.
The Truth: Without doubt, fossil fuels are limited. Oil, natural gas, and even coal may be exhausted within the next century or two. Less expensive sources will run out first. Deep ocean oil, Arctic oil, shale oil, and additional fossil fuel technologies yet to be developed, will eventually raise the price of fossil energy to the point where market forces will drive industry to invest their own money to develop alternatives.
When the government picks winners, using our taxpayer money, you can be sure special interests, such as politically connected corporations and unions, will pressure the bureaucrats to choose net losers. Corn Ethanol has been a gigantic payoff to agricultural interests. It has raised the price of grain worldwide which has been a disaster for the poorest among us. Solar projects, such as Solyndra, wasted billions while creating zero permanent jobs and less than zero usable energy.
Government-provided seed money has been wasted on crazy schemes that have their own environmental drawbacks. Wind power kills birds and exposes animals (including humans :^) to noise pollution. Both wind and solar energy require backup by fossil fueled power plants when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.
Private companies invest their hard-earned money only when there is a good chance it will pay off for their investors. Thus, they generally pick net winners. If a private venture turns sour, private money is lost and those responsible may lose their jobs and their employer may be forced out of business. That necessary process has been called “creative destruction”.
When government wastes our money on a loser, no one gets fired. The politically-connected recipients say the equivalent of “oops” (but in more legal mumbo-jumbo words), and keep their profits, except for the fraction they re-invest in further political contributions. The public agency responsible continues to blow taxpayer dollars. (What do we call it when a government program happens to pick a real winner? An accident. :^)
Fossil fuels cause some air pollution, but the most dangerous air pollution comes from the fallacies uttered by environmentalists :^). If the voting public is misled by this kind of “environmentalist air pollution”, our free economy will be destroyed, and with it, the most successful experiment so far of free peoples governing themselves. Only a High-Intellect Twit (HITwit), a person who is smart in some academic domain but quite foolish otherwise, could come up with and believe all these fallacies!
REFERENCES
[1] Makiko Sato, Email dated 14 August 2007 to James Hanson, NASA GISS, Original at http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2010/783_NASA_docs.pdf (page 48), annotated copy and detailed explanation at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/25/do-we-care-if-2010-is-the-warmist-year-in-history/
[2] NASA GISS, Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C), accessed 9 June 2012, from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.txt
[3] NASA GISS systematic distortion of US mean temperature data. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/16/the-past-is-not-what-it-used-to-be-gw-tiger-tale/
[4] NOAA Atmospheric CO2 measured at Mauna Loa observatory. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full
[5] University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) Satellite-Based Temperature of the Lower Global Atmosphere. http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2012.png
[6] Nigel Calder, 2012, Svensmark’s Cosmic Jackpot, http://calderup.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/a-stellar-revision-of-the-story-of-life/
[7] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, figure 9-20, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-20.html
[8] Schmittner, A., Urban N. M., Shakun, J. D., Mahowald, N. M., Clark, P. U., Bartlein, P. J., Mix, A. C., and Rosell-Melé, A. (2011), Climate Sensitivity Estimated From Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science, 334, 1385-1388,doi: 10.1126/science.1203513. (Behind a paywall, but free access via Schmittner’s blog, http://mgg.coas.oregonstate.edu/~andreas/ Then scroll down to the paper, click on pdf.)
[9] Ira Glickstein, 2011, CO2 Sensitivity is Multi-Modal – All bets are off. An analysis of Schmittner, 2011, paper: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/18/co2-sensitivity-is-multi-modal-all-bets-are-off/
There needs to be a climate science version of USADA to catch climate cheats. Compile all the evidence against them then humiliate them in public, like how serial cheater lance Armstrong is getting humiliated now. Will make them think twice before swinging their hockey sticks around.
Michael Mann = Lance Armstrong of climate science.
Mann just using a hockey stick instead of a bicycle. Unfortunately, the amount of taxpayer money involved is exponentially larger in Mann’s case.
Does Mann think he is an “untouchable” like Lance Armstrong thought he was? Can’t wait for Mann to sue Mark Steyn.
There is a problem with the first Chart worthy of the best efforts of the Team.
To plot temperature on the Kelvin scale starting from 0 in a very thick blue line would successfully hide everything, catastrophic or not.
This does not help people like me who would like to see real science and not ‘group think’ leading climate science forward.
Hypothesis!
You give theory a bad name
May be slightly OT, but why are all CO2 measures I have seen quoted from Mauna Loa? Surely atmospheric CO2 will be affected by local volcanic sources / activity levels. Just asking (go easy on me!)
Dave (UK)
Nicely argued post, although I don’t entirely agree with every point made – Dr Burns, for example, states my beliefs about the unimportance of CO2 quite well above, and others have mentioned nuclear. Unfortunately, though, as has been pointed out before, consideration of the scientific and logical validity of the AGW “argument”, among many others, is entirely irrelevant.
The Real Truth: The HITwit “technocrats” comprising the UN, EU, the three letter agencies, your, our and most other governments have agreed among themselves that there are too many of us, and that we have come to believe, inconveniently, that we have some kind of right to self determination. (Which we do, absolutely.) Accordingly, they have set in motion a process to reverse this and concentrate all power and wealth in their own “highly intelligent” ranks.
They use the sort of plausible “arguments” you demolish in this post to make those of “lesser” intelligence believe that there is a range of hugely important issues – AGW, overpopulation, “sustainability”, you name it – which will destroy the human race and/or the planet unless their poisonous “solutions”, always involving depopulation and the concentration of power in unelected hands, are implemented. By controlling theoretically “democratic” processes, primarily through their control of the media which feed us “information”, they make people believe that they are actually choosing these “solutions” to the invented “problems” themselves. And so the program is implemented, step by bloody step: advanced economies are being closed down, their people dispossessed and increasingly controlled; whole countries in the Middle East are being contaminated with DU or whatever to reduce the number of viable births; meanwhile “authoritative” agencies with absolute power are seen all to agree on the “necessity” of every action. No matter the distress of the honest worker whose job and home have disappeared. No matter the heartbreaking despair of the mothers in the Middle East as they give birth to their grotesquely deformed babies. All this is “necessary”, the “experts” agree. The blood-soaked history of the last century, and particularly the last few decades, bears eloquent testimony to the efficacy of the process.
Think on that when you vote in November – or, if you’re British, in two and a half years’ time, or wherever whenever. It makes absolutely no difference whether you vote for Punch or for Judy, because the “technocrats” you don’t see – or, more importantly, vote for or have any control over – have their dirty hands firmly inserted in the nether regions of both. Their “superior intelligence” will continue to decide how the show proceeds, destroying us all, until the booth is ripped down and the bewitched ordinary person sees what is really going on. Whether that results in more enlightened rule by the “limited-intelligence wise” or Hobbes’ “war of all against all” remains to be seen, but nothing whatever will change until it happens. Power pollution, not air pollution, is the real problem.
[Steve C, THANKS for picking up on my use of “HITwit” as a shortened version of “High-Intellect Twit”, namely a person who is smart in some usually academic domain but who is also so foolish that he or she thinks they know everything about everything else. Based on a Google search, I may be the first person to use “HITwit” in that sense, and I have nominated the Sheldon character in the hilarious The Big Bang Theory as the prime example HITwit. Sheldon is portrayed as a brilliant cutting edge theoretical physicist with an eidetic (photographic) memory loaded with true but useless knowledge and a foolish belief that, since physics is the basis of all science, he knows or can figure out everything about everything else. Perhaps we should add James Hansen, another PhD physicist and Twit to the list of prime examples? I considered adding Al Gore, but while he is a classic Twit, he fails in the High-Intellect department :^). Another prime example is our current President who is smart in the academic sense and a brilliant speaker but IMHO has adopted foolish policies he really believes in because has no experience in business or practical political matters. – Ira]
Your 2nd falshood is incorrectly analysed. The ice core data continually show that temperature rises before parallel atmospheric rises in CO2. So today’s CO2 rise, neither rapid or exponential, could be due to the MWP or even the RWP. If temperature rises before CO2 then CO2 is temperature driven not the other way round. That being the case our paltry production of CO2 cannot in any way drive temperature or climate. This same research data demonstrates that all the claims for a doubling of CO2 as being totally false.
[John, yes, the ice core record shows that temperatures rise hundreds of years before CO2 rises and temperatures fall hundreds of years before CO2 falls. And, yes, part of the current CO2 rise is due to positive feedback from the temperature rise. And, yes, most of the temperature rise and fall is due to natural cycles including multidecadal oscillations, cyclic variation in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun (Milankovitch Effect), cyclic changes in Solar activity (Svensmark’s Cosmic Ray Effect), and so on. And, yes, Correlation does NOT prove Causation and, even if there is Causation, we have to be careful about how to assign the DIRECTION of Causation.
[However, I am convinced that some relatively small part of warming is due to positive feedback from CO2 levels, and some of the recent increase in CO2 levels is due to human activities. Human activities have also reduced the albedo (reflectiveness) of the Earth a bit, also adding some relatively small part of warming. See my WUWT series Visualizing the “Greenhouse Effect” [Physical Analogy, Atmospheric Windows, Emission Spectra, Molecules/Photons and Light/Heat. – Ira]
@Dave
The Mauna Loa measurements are have a collection protocol that works to remove the effects of volcanic emissions.
It is interesting to note that the end result is little different from the raw data.
I second the question posed by Dave above – just where do CO2 measurements come from?
Dave says:
October 12, 2012 at 1:27 am
May be slightly OT, but why are all CO2 measures I have seen quoted from Mauna Loa? Surely atmospheric CO2 will be affected by local volcanic sources / activity levels. Just asking (go easy on me!)
————————————————————–
That is a good question but apparently Mauna Loa is an ideal place to make these measurements. The best explanation is contained in a previous post on WUWT by Willis Eschenbach
“CO2 measurements are taken only at night. Thus, they are measuring descending air that is coming from thousands of feet aloft. This air has travelled across half of the Pacific Ocean, so it is far from any man-made CO2 sources. And as a result, it is very representative of the global background CO2 levels. That’s why Keeling chose the site.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/under-the-volcano-over-the-volcano/
Oops, the quote got mistaken for an HTML Tag
“Fossil fuels cause some air pollution, but the most dangerous air pollution comes from the fallacies uttered by environmentalists :^).”
Quote of the week.
Regarding analogy to chemotherapy, let’s not be absurd. Suggested remedies against human burning of fossil fuel is not akin to chemo, it is sacrificing our children to Moloch! It is throwing virgins into the volcano! The facts are simple, cold kills, warmer is better. Increased CO2 will not harm us. Increases in temperature have happened in the past, and the world is none the worse for the wear. HOWEVER, if we stop burning fuel and generating the life-giving, prosperity inducing power of our societies, we will die. Condemning millions to starvation and freezing is not akin to the suffering of chemotherapy. It is death.
With regard to the actions suggested by the alarmists, the certain outcome of the government forced (by force and violence–or it will not succeed) reductions in fuel burning will be much worse than even the most extreme possible (and highly unlikely) results of “global warming.”
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
This is simple, with good references.
“It is becoming clear the main cause is natural cycles, such as Solar activity that modulates cosmic rays [6]”
Better not let Leif hear you say that 🙂
There is an extensively researched chapter on AGW in my book (in press) concerning critical thinking. Your conclusions on 1, 2, and 4 are most likely correct. Your conclusion on 3 is most likely wrong. Four different methods, all based on multiple peer (not pal) reviewed undies since 2006 through 2012 suggest the most likely ECS is about 1.9, with plausible bounds from 1.5 to 2.1.
Much more worrisome is that your conclusion in 5 is doubly wrong on facts. Although we will not run out of fossil fuels for centuries, we will have encountered peak fossil energy production rates for all types before about 2060. And there is no conceivable way that all ‘green’ replacements solve the resulting problems that arise before 2050. Just math, in the absence of inventions not yet even on the horizon. Therefore your conclusion about 6 fails, again because the underlying facts are wrong. Extensive factual explanation is provided in chapters 5,6,7, and 8 of my book Gaia’s Limits. Whether you agree or disagree with its conclusions, at least understand the facts. On those, IPCC AR4 is as usual also just plain wrong.
[Rud, thanks for agreeing that my conclusions on Environmental Fallacies #1 (Accurate Measures), #2 (Humans Main Cause) and #4 (Predicted Catastrophe) are most likely correct. Since three links in the chain fail, the CAGW theory fails. Great, we agree! As for #3 being most likely wrong in your opinion, a value of ECS above 1 requires net positive cloud feedback. While nightime clouds do produce positive feedback, they do it at night when the Earth surface tends to be coolest, but daytime clouds produce negative feedback, during the day when surface temperatures are highest. You may be correct that ECS is 1.5 to 2.1, but I would not bet the US or world economy on that likelihood. As for #5 (“Green” Solutions) you say that peak fossil energy will be about 2060. Again, you may be right, but look at how the advent of fracked natural gas has changed the outlook over the past decade, and cut the price of gas drastically. No one knows what technological advance will be next or how it will make more fossil energy available at reasonable costs. Again, I would not bet against technological advances. But, if 2060 turns out to be peak fossil, and if nuclear and hydroelectric and declining fossil cannot support further development of human civilization beyond 2050, that generation will see rising energy costs and will be forced to conserve. The spread of western-style economics and government will lead to higher standards of living, and concomitant lower reproduction rates, further reducing energy needs. Perhaps a genetic engineering disaster or nuclear war will decimate populations. In any case, my Environmental Fallacy #6 (Government Mandates) is still correct. Bottom Line: Government subsidy of “Green” energy is mostly a waste of our tax dollars. If you disagree, please comment further. – Ira]
MikeB says
“And as a result, it is very representative of the global background CO2 levels. That’s why Keeling chose the site.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/under-the-volcano-over-the-volcano/
Much clearer now! – Thanks for the link.
Dave
Good post. A minor nit: I suggest using the term “global warming” in all cases where you have used “warming” in your list of fallacies, and also add “of current global warming” to the end of #2.
The entire CAGW conjecture is a house of cards, and this post does a good job of demonstrating the weaknesses of the component arguments, each of which falls apart under the slightest critical scrutiny.
For that reason, I don’t find analogies to be helpful. It’s better to stick to the facts, evaluate issues each on its own merits, and avoid muddying the waters by introduction of unrelated matters.
Finally, I don’t consider nuclear power to be green, but I would like to have back my 100W light-bulbs, pretty please.
Well-done
Steve C: If what you say is true, and I am inclined to believe you, then realistically, who we vote for does not matter, at least not in the long-term. We are not really choosing one path or another with our elected officials, we are simply choosing variations in the same path.
In the US, Obama was a test of our willingness to bend towards European socialism now rather than later. It is a test that proved we are not ready – yet, but the fact that Obama is not buried in the polls by Romney already is a good indicator to the testers that we are inching closer. Remember, Clinton’s attempt at universal health care was met with a 95-0 vote in the Senate, and this one was passed with most not even bothering to read it – less than 20 years later.
Mark
Dave Dodd says: October 11, 2012 at 10:21 pm: Oh, COME ON! How does one get three decimal output accuracy, when the input is INTEGER values! My poor old High School physics teacher gives you an F-!!!! His red pen would be BLEEDING by now!! “The Truth: The Earth has warmed a bit since 1880, but no more than 0.4⁰C.” How could we possibly know there has been ANY warming (or for that matter cooling) since 1880? We don’t know! The error band is larger than the supposed warming! ARRRGGHH!
Well Dave, first of all the number 0.4 is one not threedecimal places of accuracy.
Secondly, we know something about the data, namely that it contains a ‘noise’ component which causes it to jitter up and down from year to year. Even climate alarmists don’t claim those jitters are anything other than natural. But on a long enough timescale thse jitters tend to even out, leaving just the long term trend, up or down. Thet long term trend since 1850 has been a rise of 0.4degC per century. It is perfectly clearly defined above the noise. (see, for example, the blue line in the chart at http://www.thetruthaboutclimatechange.org/tempsworld.html )
Of course the number is only as good as the temperature data on which it is based. But it is certainly not statistically insignificant. Moreover, it demonstrates very clearly that the temperature rise (even if the data is perfectly correct) has been most un-alarming.
Ira,
I am with you all the way on your very clear exposition of your six environmental fallacies.
I have to take issue with you, however, on your reply comment to John Marshall, October 12, 2012 at 3:02 am, where you assert: I am convinced that some relatively small part of warming is due to positive feedback from CO2 levels, and some of the recent increase in CO2 levels is due to human activities.
The danger in that statement is that it is unquantified and therefore scientifically meaningless. All it can do is to give succour to alarmists who will grasp in desperation at the straws you are inadvertently offering – something which I am sure you did not intend.
Dr. Glickstein’s argument for the falsity of FALSEHOOD #3 fails, for it assumes the existence of the equilibrium climate sensitivity as a scientific concept but this concept does not exist. The non-existence follows from the lack of observability of the equilibrium temperature.
Nonetheless, successful refutations of FALSEHOOD #3 are readily at hand. I’ll supply details if these would be of interest.
Rud Istvan says, October 12, 2012 at 8:00 am, concerning Ira’s 6 environmental fallacies: Your conclusion on 3 is most likely wrong. Four different methods, all based on multiple peer (not pal) reviewed undies [?!] since 2006 through 2012 suggest the most likely ECS is about 1.9, with plausible bounds from 1.5 to 2.1. Much more worrisome is that your conclusion in 5 is doubly wrong on facts. Although we will not run out of fossil fuels for centuries, we will have encountered peak fossil energy production rates for all types before about 2060. And there is no conceivable way that all ‘green’ replacements solve the resulting problems that arise before 2050. Just math, in the absence of inventions not yet even on the horizon. Therefore your conclusion about 6 fails, again because the underlying facts are wrong.
Rud, I disagree with you on each and every one of your points.
Ira’s point 3 is robust. Climate models are an intellectual dead end. It doesn’t matter who reviews the claims (peer or pal), the claims are all subject to the fundamental fallacy that they assume the very fact that they seek to prove, namely that CO2 is a warming agent. That is circular reasoning of the worst kind. It is totally unscientific. Modelling in science is a completely valid technique (indeed it is the stuff of scientific creativity) but only if its predictions are measured against real world data. The climate models have all failed that test miserably, and, I predict, always will as long as they are based on the false assumption that CO2 is an atmospheric warming agent.
Ira’s point 5 is robust. It doesn’t matter a scrap whether we reach peak fossil fuel production in 2060, even assuming you are remotely right about that magic date. The only significant issue is the rate of decine thereafter. In any case, just on nuclear fuel alone, we have enough existing nuclear fuel waste plus new sources such as thorium to last for several centuries. By failing to address the rate of decline rather than just the peak you are being alarmist and un-scientific.
Ira’ conclusion 6 is robust simply because the underlying facts on points 3 and 5, contrary to your assertions, are correct.
Concern over where energy sources will come from to see us through the next few centuries is, of course, a lesser degree of malfeasance that believing in the power of CO2 to cause armageddon, the latter view being just plain silly. But it exhibits in itself an alarming tendency amongst many people to worry too much about energy sources in the distant future when the real problem is short term, highly political, and urgent.
I prefer to see the theory as a jigsaw puzzle, If one piece is missplaced you cannot say that you have solved the puzzle. And right now there are so many pieces that do not fit to each other.
So could it be said that fossil fools are the source of these fallacies?
Lonnie E. Schubert says:October 12, 2012 at 5:35 am
Regarding analogy to chemotherapy, let’s not be absurd. Suggested remedies against human burning of fossil fuel is not akin to chemo, it is sacrificing our children to Moloch! It is throwing virgins into the volcano! The facts are simple, cold kills, warmer is better. Increased CO2 will not harm us. Increases in temperature have happened in the past, and the world is none the worse for the wear. HOWEVER, if we stop burning fuel and generating the life-giving, prosperity inducing power of our societies, we will die. Condemning millions to starvation and freezing is not akin to the suffering of chemotherapy. It is death.
With regard to the actions suggested by the alarmists, the certain outcome of the government forced (by force and violence–or it will not succeed) reductions in fuel burning will be much worse than even the most extreme possible (and highly unlikely) results of “global warming.”
Effects already with us! The greens dreadful policy of reducing the population is working very well.