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.
knr says: “Try some of the ‘tricks’ the team gets up to at most universities on most courses and all you end up with is a need to rewrite your work at the least.”
Skeptic science isn’t a group name but a standard. It is one I suspect many academics would willingly endorse as it is largely what most of us were taught was meant by “science” before a whole host of subjects that could not achieve those standards started demanding and being allowed to be called science.
Theory 2 also presents the ever popular False Choice fallacy. You are given two choices, one must be true. Usually one is absurd, therefore the other must be true. Obama is particularly fond of a variant on this where he presents two obviously false alternatives, then proposes his third way, which must be true.
CAGW presents its own false choice: we must choose between saving the planet and
using fossil fuelsfree market capitalism.Whenever I see this fallacy I know I am being handed a nice hot steaming bowl of horse manure.
The first two are not just speculations. Evidence more than suggests that they are wrong. First, the hydrological cycle is the regulator of the earth’s temperature, not a “force” that causes it. Venus is hot because it lost it’s water to space from being too close to the sun. Second, we have zero evidence of smart alien life forms and the probability that we will ever find any gets less as we expand our knowledge of the universe. These two “theories” are better classified as myths.
Item 3 could make Item 1 plausible.
A sufficiently large rock travelling thro our atmosphere would certainly produce Travesty Manns missing heat, especially if it impacts an ocean..
Nice Posting, the appeal of item 1&2 is religion.
The organized churches have been jumping on the CAGW meme as they recognize their own schtick being used.
Parasites always disguise themselves as do-gooders.
The louder the offer to help, using your resources, the greedier the leech.
I say;”A Tax on all do-gooders” 150% of their gross income.
Of the first two, the second speculation is not demanding us to give over our money or radically transform the world to fit the vision of those who believe. Those who [believe] the first want us to give them our money, agree with them to the point of not questioning anything they want, and attack those who decline to cooperate.
Eric Worrall says: The other two theories, however compelling they seem, are just speculation.
This entire ‘essay’, and most of the nearly identical one from a couple of days ago, can be reduced to this: “In my opinion there is absolutely no evidence supporting human caused climate change.” The rest is round-about illustrations of your certainty about this. Mainstream climate science is no better than a theory about aliens (again). What’s more, doubling atmospheric CO2 poses no greater threat than an alien invasion. Effectively zero risk.
Try to appreciate the irony of climate scientists being the ones routinely accused around here of underestimating uncertainties.
Theory one actually has ample evidence to the contrary so you could make a case it’s the odd one out.
Skience, thanks for a well-reasoned essay. I would add another observation regarding the current business of academics:
The customers (taxpayers) do not directly recieve the products they are buying (research) and hence are not in a position to separate the good from the bad. That job is left to the service providers (universities) who have demonstrated little incentive to criticisize their own brand.
Is it any wonder that science has been contorted under this business model? In its worst examples, we have a tribute system like the days of old.
@ur momisugly Izen 4/10/14 at 5:39 AM
“How do you know Venus never had oceans?”
How do you know it did? Good science says it didn’t until proven it had. Otherwise fairy’s hobbits, etc exist, since you can’t prove they don’t!
Journals are in the business of making money, so they will publish all kinds of crap. Just because it passes peer review and gets published does not mean much as far as I am concerned. And it doesn’t make it science either, because it can still be crap or fraud. Unless you go to the researchers office and check his records, you have to take their word for it. Autism and vaccines anyone? Lewinsky should test the correlation between belief in that hypothesis and belief in CAGW.
Wiki says: “In modern science, the term “theory” refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science.”
#3 is a theory …
#1 and #2 are just speculation …
Actually we have strong empirical evidence of alien presence.
They must be intelligent enough to appreciate the value of not being seen and they also have the technical means to attain it.
And sure as hell we can’t see them, which proves the point.
The same way the fact a runaway greenhouse never occurred on Earth proves the grave danger we are in. As Dr. Hansen puts it
In other words, had our remote ancestors not escaped that fate, we would not have to worry about a runaway greenhouse, because there would not be anyone left to worry in the first place. However, as it is now, our situation is completely different.
Is logic not wonderful?
Leo,
Your entire “post” can be summed up as “sour grapes”.
Calling Venus a “runaway greenhouse” is a bit odd. Venusian climate, from what we can tell, has been remarkably stable for a really long time. With no plate tectonics as we know it, current tinking is that Venus undergoes periodic curstal turnover from below over a period of several million years on a very long term periodic basis. This idea is supported by the apparent lack of old cratering. Venus, with a surface pressure of ~90X Earth’s implies that good ol’ pV=nRT plays a huge role in the temps on Venus. Getting Earth’s atmosphere to 9000% of present pressure is not a plausible outcome, unless one has taken a lot of drugs. Human industry, except to the extent that it has come up with psychotropic drugs, plays no role in making Hansen’s biazarre idea a reality.
Dr Hansen says we could melt the ice-caps in a century. Now, I’m no expert, but wouldn’t it take the most fantastic amount of heat to melt the Antarctic ice?
izen
April 10, 2014 at 5:39 am
‘The surface of Venus actually receives LESS solar radiation than the Earth because the high cloud layer has a much greater albedo than the Earth…’
So, why then, is Venus a good comparison?
‘Although the time in the past when Venus became a runaway greenhouse was when the sun was much cooler. As the sun increases in output we get closer tot he Earth receiving the same sort of energy as Venus did in the Early stages of the solar system…’
I thought the CAGW mantra was that the sun didn’t change in energy? Are you having it both ways?
BTW: I think a fourth scientific proposition is that James Hansen is an alien.
I learned in high school physics that the essence of science is successful prediction. Aristotle had a lot of reasonable-sounding notions about mechanics, but when we tested them out in the lab, one after another was shot down.
1. Theory 1 is falsified by “the pause” and the 100% failure rate of climate models. It is theoretically beyond-absurd by the sheer fact that life has existed on this planet for 1/2 billion years since the Cambrian, and by the fact that temperatures have varied for the last 2500 years by considerably more than the claimed tipping point, yet have been relatively stable over that slightly larger variation. Statement One is falsified so utterly that words cannot suffice to say how strongly. This does NOT falsify the idea that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will have a blanket-like effect, raising the equilibrium temperature. That idea is far milder and Lord Monckton is one who keeps proving it on this site.
2. I have seen a lot of evidence for the space aliens idea, but none of it was of impressive quality. For scientific purposes, there is no actual evidence. This idea is also not falsifiable, for any aliens have yet to communicate with us, and until they do, we cannot make predictions.
3. This idea has an observation basis and can make predictions that stones will fall from the sky rarely–with very occasional disasters and catastrophes, whose timing cannot be predicted. It is thus a scientific statement.
We have NOT two but three classes here as to science: the third statement is a scientific statement, the second is not (but not unreasonable)) and the first one–AS STATED ABOVE–is profoundly antiscientific.
So, not only aliens cannot predict climate but also they do not know how to cure male pattern baldness.
I am so disappointed in alien science. 😛
Despite having been once an astronomer on the Pioneer Venus project Hansen is ignorant of the geology of Venus. Venus has no plate tectonics and that makes all the difference. On earth excess radioactive heat is continuously vented by plate boundary volcanism. Absent plate boundary volcanism, excess radioactive heat on Venus just builds up below the crust. One result is scattered in-plate volcanism. As radioactive heat continues to undermine the crust it eventually breaks up into giant slabs that sink into the interior and an entirely new crust is formed. Based on impact crater counts, one such repaving cycle is estimated to take from three hundred to six hundred million years.If Venus is the same age as the earth it is possible that it may have experienced ten such repaving cycles by now. Its atmosphere is entirely a product of these giant eructations and has nothing to do with Hansen’s runaway greenhouse fantasy.
Can the burning of all the fossil fuels in the ground do this? The IPCC and Sir John Houhtton (former IPCC authore AR1,2,3) say No way. Hansen backtracked on the oceans ending up in the atmosphere, see below in his own words.
You sound like you don’t believe….. the basic science about 1% of all atmospheric gases being responsible for every single degree of temperature rise between no atmosphere, and atmosphere conditions! Obviously you don’t understand – “thuh basick signts is sownd.”
LoL
And how dare you remind modern believers that – it’s impossible to get an object hotter than it is in vacuum-only conditions, by adding a cold nitrogen-oxygen coolant bath, phase change refrigerated by water.
ConfusedPhoton says:
April 10, 2014 at 1:25 am
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.
izen says:
April 10, 2014 at 5:02 am
. However the observational evidence it is possible is obvious from the state of Venus.
—————————————————————————————————————————
No it is not obvious from the state of Venus. You can account for most of the temperature on Venus with the Gas Laws. Run away global warming isn’t a necessary theory for it.
Leo Geiger says:
April 10, 2014 at 8:18 am
—————————————————————————————————————————
Why would we be under estimating uncertainty about the effects of doubling CO2 when we know from the geological record that it has been as high as 7000 ppm and no run-away global warming took place. Also when it was a 5000 ppm the earth was in the middle of an ice-age.
Are you saying that somehow it is different now?
I have been examining all this again over the last few years and the extremity of the things the people who believe and tell anybody who’ll listen –
‘Oh, the basic science of this, is sound!’
The claims made by the effect itself: just the official story – is enough to make anyone trained in energy mechanics laugh out loud,
in their face.
1% of the gases are responsible for every degree of heating past the hottest vacuum surface conditions No atmosphere at all with 100% impingement and zero removal through other means than radiant?
A cold bulk gas nitrogen oxygen bath refrigerated with water is responsible for making an object it is washing of heat
hotter than it was,
than if it weren’t there.
And not only that but only the infrared interactive gases – the main one being the atmospheric refrigerant – are the sole ones responsible for any of that heating.
The things, the people who will claim, “Oh, I firmly believe that’s real science,”
Are the same people who didn’t know for 15 years James Hansen and his friends’ global climate models
don’t represent the atmosphere behaving according to Ideal Gas Law.
The Green House Gas Theory that couldn’t be a theory because it was too magical to falsify with actual experimental evidence.
Wouldn’t you be happy with that as your scientific legacy? My God… LoL.
And how would we know if the IPCC chorus weren’t working for the lizard men to de-populate humans to make room for them? Looking like a real estate grab to me.