Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Consider the following descriptions of three scientific theories. Which is the odd one out?
1. The buildup of anthropogenic carbon dioxide may lead to dangerous climate change, not because CO2 is a particularly powerful greenhouse gas, but because the slight warming caused by excess CO2 will cause sea water to evaporate, filling the atmosphere with water vapour. Water vapour is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. The evaporation of water vapour will trigger a chain reaction, a runaway greenhouse effect, in which global warming caused by the evaporation of ever increasing amounts of sea water forces yet more sea water to evaporate. In Dr. James Hansen’s words, “The oceans will begin to boil”.
2. We have already been visited by aliens, who most likely continue to monitor us. The alternative is to believe the preposterous proposition that we are the only intelligent life inhabiting any of the planets circling our galaxy’s 100 billion stars. The reason this must be true – all we have to do is look in the mirror. In a few decades, or at most a few centuries, humans will have the technology to build nanotech space probes the size of a grain of sand or smaller. Probes which can visit other stars, and transmit information back to us. Such probes are already on the drawing board.
See: http://www.space.com/612-nanotechnology-scientists-pin-big-hopes-small-scale.html
Since the probes we shall build will be incredibly small, it will be possible to launch them at near light speed, for trivial economic cost. Scientists have even discovered ways such probes could be steered and decelerated as they approach their destination, using the Galactic magnetic field. If just one group of intelligent aliens in our galaxy of 100 billion stars reached our level of technology, at least half a million years ago, and made the decision to send out such space probes, then there has already been enough time for their high speed probes to reach our star system, and report back what they found.
3. Human lives are in danger right now, from asteroids and comets flying through space. As the shock advent of the Chelyabinsk meteor demonstrated, Earth can be struck unexpectedly at any time by meteors and other space bodies, many of which have the potential to cause widespread devastation. The Chelyabinsk meteor detonated with a force of 500 kilotons of TNT – it is only due to good fortune that the explosion, which caused some buildings to collapse and widespread damage and injuries from breaking glass, did not cause serious loss of life.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor
So which theory is the odd one out?
The answer is theory three of course. Unlike the other two theories, theory three is supported by observational evidence. The other two theories, however compelling they seem, are just speculation.
| Story Title | Separating fact from fantasy |
| One line summary of story |
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gud one. I had a giggle. Maybe the story should read, ‘Look to the skies, our future is foretold’
Although the first two are only speculation, number two seemed more credible.
I had a teacher (who was the Dux of Fort Street High) in primary school who foretold that by the time i left school, we would all be getting around in flying cars… i left school in 1961. wonderful what idiotic nonsense academics can spout.
Wow. Mr. Hansen seems to be really alarmed.
He strongly believes a run away green house effect has made Venus inhospitable. Given the limited understanding we have of the climate developments on our own planet, it is astonishing that he grounds his fear on the hypothesized developments of another planet that we have hardly studied.
On the other hand: In the video Mr. Hansen is holding his head tilted all the time as if he wasn‘t sure about his claims. Awkward.
Be careful, If Lewandowsky reads this, he may conclude that we believe the first episode of South Park is a documentary based on real facts.
Theory #1 is two half-truth “facts”, presented in such a way as to intentionally mislead by supporting the concluding proposition that a runaway greenhouse will occur if additonal water is allowed to evaporate due to increasing CO2. (The absurdity is revealed by then makng the statement: OK, everyone, stop breathing. Your next breath could be the one that triggers the tipping point to a Venusian atmosphere.)
Using half-truths to build an unsupported conclusion is a “Fallacy of Composition” logic error.
The environmentalists, the Progressives, and especially the CAGW alarmists love to use use half-truths, in ever more dubious ways, as they make outwardly true statements, but then omit the other facts that won’t support their desired conclusion.
Here’s the full story.
The Chelyabinsk “meteor” was actually a probe from another star system. It was programmed to seek out planets with increasing levels of CO2, and when it found one it was to explode as a message to its home planet.
The evidence is right there at Chelyabinsk. The science is settled. The debate is over.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/10/why-a-compelling-theory-is-not-enough/#comment-1609630
Richards in Vancouver – a perfect analysis to illustrate the point!
Bravo.
Given Lewandowsky’s lack of intellectual prowess, it would not surprise me if he thought that the people in control of the fossil fuel industry were alien lizard men who plan to kill off mankind for the water.
After all that would not be inconsistent with CAGW.
And how do you stop the next generation of scientists from letting real world evidence get in the way of wild theorizing?
Well here’s a start:
“Science community dismayed at decision to axe lab work from A-levels
Plan to end coursework in science A-levels described as ‘death knell for UK science education’ by Physiological Society”
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/apr/09/science-community-dismay-axe-lab-work-alevel
Theory Number 1 – look at the geological record. It never happened there, so why should it suddenly start happening now?
Not surprisingly, natural climate cycles and the geological record are both subject the alarmists consider to be taboo.
Don’t forget rogue planets.
It seems exploring the christian connection to climate science is a gift that keeps giving
from
“Are scientists the prophets of today when it comes to climate change ?”
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/are.scientists.the.prophets.of.today.when.it.comes.to.climate.change/36527.htm
“Christian Today spoke to Dr Isabel Carter, chair of church environmental group Operation Noah, and Christian Aid’s Joe Ware to find out what they make of the report.
JW: ….The IPCC is the gold standard of climate science, hundreds of the world’s leading scientists have reviewed the thousands of studies from across the globe. Like the prophets in the Bible their warnings need to be heeded.
IC: The report does move rather rapidly from general acceptance of climate change. Much of their findings are now recorded as virtually certain – 99 to 100 per cent probability – or extremely likely – 95 to 100 per cent probability – to adaptation.
….climate sceptics have delayed such acceptance by decades
JW:….Christians are becoming an increasingly important voice in this process because at its heart climate change is about injustice.
There are millions of Christians and people of other faiths suffering on the front line of climate change.”
————-
clearly all what they say is such a deep darkness its hard to know where to begin. Its based on parroting sound bite maxims that fit their own agenda. which is dishonest and bearing false witness. Maybe like another famous christian Tony Blair they feel the ‘hand of history’ as they promote a sexed up document that is a ‘noble lie’ to save us all [ego inflation].
In the old days christians used to burn people to purify them and ‘to save their souls” thus reasoned they were doing them a favour.
Absolute nonsense.
Did not the Institut in Paris, then the second most learned scientific body in the world after the Royal Society, declare in 1812 that the idea of stones falling from the sky was total nonsense.
So bah to that.
Except a few months later there was a fall of meteorites just outside Paris.
Kindest Regards
cnxtim says:
April 10, 2014 at 12:28 am
I also recall seeing old newspaper or science journal articles showing illustrations of us all flying about in our “flying cars”, with the men folk suitably attired in suit, tie, trilby, & pipe! This was what the “experts” believed we would all be doing in the 1970s, from the 1930s perspective. Isn’t crystal ball gazing wonderful?
@ur momisugly Peter Miller.
Precisely! When CO2 levels were 19 times what they are today, runaway global warming never happened, but Ice Ages did! So why, in Heavens name, is it going to happen with 600ppm CO2 now? What, if anything, has happened to cause such an event today? Bert Onestone said, “a scientific consensus can be undone by a single fact!” Well, a few facts spring to mind. The warming in NOT unprecedented, there never has been runaway global warming on Earth regardless of atmospheric CO2 content, the warming is not rapid, the last 4 Inter-glacials were as warm or warmer than today, two of those last Inter-glacials were warmer than today by at least 2-3 degrees Celsius, the Arctic Circle was warmer in the 1940s than it is today, & most likely so in the early 1900-1920s, (one large vessel managed to hit an iceberg in 1912 & sank with a tragic loss of life due to carving of the Arctic ice sheet earlier than usual). The Arctic has been ice-free several times in the geological past! How many facts do they need?
I explain the water vapor theory being nonsense, by showing what happen during the 1998 El Nino, the temperature shot up, so did water vapor, but came down just as fast, when the El Nino was finished, if water vapor was self perpetuating or exponential there would have been no cooling after
we need a ‘great demon’ theory
Church of England vows to fight ‘great demon’ of climate change
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/12/church-climate-change-investment-great-demon-flooding
“The Church of England has said that it will, as a last resort, pull its investments from companies that fail to do enough to fight the “great demon” of climate change and ignore the church’s theological, moral and social priorities.”
The aliens are already here. They arrived in their ships the size of a grain of sand and the only reason we haven’t seen them is because they are hiding in the oceans.
But there is compelling evidence *against* 1:
1 describes a positive feedback system that by its very nature is instable. Suppose the system is (somehow) in equilibrium, then any disturbance will set the system on an exponentially growing deviation from that equilibrium, either to the “boiling ocean” state or to the “frozen ocean” state. It is imposible for a system like that to remain in the (near) equilibrium state due to natural fluctuations.
The fact that the Earth is not in either state implies that the assumption of positive feedback is wrong.
Now you can argue that there is a positive feedback over part of the temperature domain only. The feedback is then self-limiting. But the simple argument above tells you then that currently the
system is in that self limiting state, where there is no positive feedback.
skeptic science
As this fits in very nicely with an idea I have been developing it may be a good time to introduce it.
For many years I have tried to distinguish climate “science” by the use of quotation marks to show that I did not consider the work of most climate academics to fulfil the criteria I was taught for a science at school and university. I know many others share this view as I’ve seen similar views repeated many times, not least in this article, but also in comments regarding the failure of climate science to use “the scientific method” and for example in comments about “post-normal science”. I’ve no doubt those same views will be repeated again here.
However there is a huge problem with skeptics trying to tell scientists what standards we think they should work to. Although the majority of skeptics are perfectly qualified to comment on science being taught at degree level in the hard sciences most of us are not university academics and whilst many are “scientists” most of us are not. So, whilst skeptics may wish science to operate at a standard that we consider to be “science”, the reality is that we are a group largely outside of what most of society considers to be “science” demanding that those inside this group called “science” should meet the standards expected of us outside.
We may dislike the situation. But we are not in a position to demand. We might be able to demand if we were a body like government or in some other way had authority or control over those academics who self-identify as scientists. But the reality is that these days the criteria used to determine science is peer-review by other people who self-identify as scientists and have themselves been peer reviewed. This is in essence a self-perpetuating social group. I believe it is time we skeptics accepted that “science” is a social construct describing a group of people who set their own rules and as such as outsiders we have no right to dictate those rules for them. And irrespective of whether we might like those within this social group of scientists to use the “scientific method” I believe we have to leave that choice up to them. And as we have seen, that choice is that they have chosen to include within their group called science many thing like climate science which cannot be tested by the scientific method.
As outsiders we cannot realistically demand this group match our standards.
Instead, I believe it is time that we skeptics set out clearly what we mean by “science” and therefore I would like to develop a concept I suggest is called “Skeptic science”.
As it is mentioned so often by us skeptics, the key requirement would be that assertions are only stated as valid if and only if they are subject to the scientific method – or as many engineers will know it “it might work in theory but let’s see if it works in practice”.
But I would like to go further. As this could be described as a battle between the private and public-funded sectors, and the majority of skeptics work in the private sector where standards have to be much higher because real customers will take private sector scientists and engineers to court when there are problems, I suggest the ultimate test most skeptics would to the quality of sceptic science is this:
“That the assertions must be such that even if the assertion itself is found to be untrue, that the skeptic can show that the assertion itself was valid given the evidence then available”.
So for example if one were to say “the planet is certainly warming”, if it were later shown that the planet is not warming (almost in any period) then the assertion is not up to the standards of skeptic science. If however someone had said “based on this dataset, the temperature has warmed over the last 100 years”, that is skeptic science – because even if it were found that the dataset was a total forgery, the original assertion was that this dataset showed warming so it was not invalid. Indeed if we added to the assertion that it “… has warmed over the last 100 years and on average we expect rising CO2 to cause some additional warming”, given the hard science supporting CO2, this also would be skeptic science because it is based of substantiated evidence of the measured radiative properties of CO2 and as it includes “uncertainy” in the shape of “expect to … on average” rather than “unequivocably will”, this is a very robust statement.
In other words, this is the standard most private sector skeptics in engineering and science have to apply to their work. This is because in real life (outside academia) where there are real customers and real life and death situations which need reliable advice, when things go wrong, skeptics have to show that their advice was reasonable in a court of law. In the real world where time and resource is finite, advice has to be given knowing more data would improve it and so knowing there is a real risk that e.g. they fail to put the drill just where the geological fault is that make the whole mine uneconomic. So private sector engineers and scientists are naturally skeptics.
This is why scientifically trained engineers and scientists in the private sector expect a much higher standard.
So, whilst scientists like to portray their work as some paridigm of virtue, the reality is that in terms of quality of advice skeptics have to set themselves much higher standards. This I believe is why there has been such strong feeling. Skeptics work in an environment where they expect very high standards – just look at Steve McIntyre! In contrast scientists (i.e. academics) expect to be able to “float a few ideas and see where they fall”. They want, indeed, need, the freedom to explore ideas without worrying unduly if they are wrong. This is good within an academic context as it does allow ideas to be explored, but it clearly is not appropriate within the private sector nor when giving governments advice on policy.
So, if we skeptics stopped trying to tell scientists what they should do, and instead led by example and set out what we expected through the development of the idea of “skeptic science”, I believe much of the hostility might be reduced.
Practical examples
So, looking above.
1. Can Hansen argue he was right to say it would certainly warm ending in doomsday that that it is not currently warming? I’ve never ever seen anything that would justify that. Given that, I think that if he were sued by world governments for poor advice in a court of law (like skeptics might), on the evidence I have seen, he would be found guilty as he gave advice which appears to be unsupportable now we know it to be wrong.
So this is not skeptic science
2. Visitation by aliens. This is more difficult because we have to create a hypothetical situation where we know aliens don’t exist. But should that occur, could the wild ideation theories be argued to have reasonably led people to believe in alien visitation. I must admit I’ve never really looked at the evidence, but judging on what other says, this does not look anything like skeptic science.
3. Meteors expectantly hitting the earth. That there are meteors is a fact. That the earth has been hit is a fact. That we continue to be hit by small space objects is a fact. It is difficult to construct a scenario whereby this is proven as false, that the assertion “we will be hit in the future at some unexpected time, by a meteor (up to a reasonable size)” appears to be sufficiently robust to be skeptic science.
I should have stated that many scientist, particularly in the hard sciences already work at the level of skeptic science. E.g. when CERN said that they had found evidence that might suggest the speed of light had been exceeded, this was skeptic science at its best. Indeed, there may be many within climate science who are cautious in what they say and who would be skeptic scientists.
Anybody have any theories on what killed 9 Blue Whales :
http://globalnews.ca/news/1261749/heavy-ice-may-have-crushed-9-blue-whales-to-death-off-newfoundland/
25 years after this IPCC’s incorrect science started in earnest, we have had >17 years no warming. The claim that the decade 2000-2010 was the hottest recorded is false because 1930s’ data were altered. There is no ‘missing heat’**. There has been AGW, probably from polluted clouds due to Asian industrialisation, but it saturated in the late 1990s***.
The extended GHE is a falsification. The models exaggerate surface to atmosphere energy transfer 3x, matched with 3x increase of real GHE. Half the exaggerated heating is offset by incorrectly applying Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation at ToA, leaving 40% imaginary extra energy concentrated in the lower atmosphere. To offset the extra heating, it is mopped up in hind-casting by c. 25% increased low level cloud albedo.
No professional having full oversight should have allowed this. Real observations show near zero CO2-AGW. It’s probably the end game. The next move is to switch to the new Little Ice Age from solar effects convolved with the cold ENSO.
**No professional scientist or engineer would accept the claimed heat transfer physics is valid.
***Sagan’s aerosol optical physics is wrong.
Wow This is looking extremely interesting. My bet is that this year we are going to see a massive increase in global ice as Antarctica seems to be going definitely in one direction as we enter winter in the Southern Hemisphere.
Sorry link for previous post re antarctic ice
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png