Guest essay by Steve Goreham
Originally published in Communities Digital News.
In 1997 during the Kyoto Protocol Treaty negotiations in Japan, Dr. Robert Watson, then Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was asked about scientists who challenge United Nations conclusions that global warming was man-made. He answered, “The science is settled…we’re not going to reopen it here.” Thus began one of the greatest propaganda lines in support of the theory of human-caused global warming.
On June 19 this year, the University of Northern Iowa held a debate on climate change titled, “Climate Instability: Interpretations of Scientific Evidence.” Dr. Jerry Schnoor of the University of Iowa presented an effective case for the theory of man-made warming and I presented the case for climate change driven by natural causes. The video contains 30 minutes of presentation by each side and then 30 minutes of questions and rebuttal, presented to a small audience of faculty and students.
Formal debates on the theory of human-caused warming are somewhat rare in our society today. Former Vice President Al Gore stated on the CBS Early Show on May 31, 2006:
…the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. There is no more scientific debate among serious people who’ve looked at the science…Well, I guess in some quarters, there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the earth is flat instead of round.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson declared to Congress in 2010, “The science behind climate change is settled, and human activity is responsible for global warming.” Even President Obama in his 2014 State of the Union address said, “But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.”
The Los Angeles Times announced last year that they will not print opinions that challenge the concept that humans are the cause of climate change. The BBC has taken a similar position. Many of our universities will not allow an open debate on climate change. Last year, the Department of Meteorology and Climate Science at San Jose State University posted an image of two professors holding a match to my book.
In contrast to the “no debate” positions of our political leaders, news media, and many universities, the event at the University of Northern Iowa was a breath of fresh air. Thanks to Dr. Catherine Zeman and the Center for Energy and Environmental Education at UNI for their sponsorship of an open debate on the “settled science” of climate change.
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
pfgetty2013: “What a crock! So, I guess we also have to put creationism on an equal tier as evolution, all to pacify those who cannot accept the science when they simply don’t like what it says.”
Science depends upon observation of predicted phenomena. Where have we observed evolution? Which species have we seen evolve? What experiments identify reproductive success as the driver of the emergent species?
In the geological fossil record! For example the evolution of the horse can be traced through fossils found of prehistoric horses. They started out as bush creatures about the size of a cat with five toes. Evolution of vegetation and development of broad grasslands led to the following changes in the horse:
1) he began to raise up on three toes to see above the grass. Their first and fifth toes then atrophied and vestiges of the two unnecessary toes became two thin splints of bone under the skin.
2) Subsequent fossils showed the horse raising up on one toe, the now useless toes number 2 and 4 wound up being thin splints of bone and the 1 and 5 toe splints disappeared. The single toe also lengthened making the horse even taller. To this day, toes 2 and 4 on the modern horse are preserved as the thin splints of bone lying along the sides of the single toe and toenail that today’s horse stands on!
http://iws.collin.edu/biopage/faculty/mcculloch/1406/outlines/chapter%201/Rav4.JPG
Of course the creationists have tried to stamp this out because it is a compelling stack of evidence. The trouble with attacking specific examples is there are countless examples of the same kind evolution in all other species in the fossil record.
The case of the keyhole brachiopod – a shell fish- is also pretty compelling: adult predecessors in this chain of evidence had a shell with two lobes, one on either side. In the fossil record, younger rocks showed this lobal development resulting in the lobes coalescing in the front enclosing a hole in the middle – hence the name. Younger rock layers still showed the evolved shells finally closing the “keyhole”. Is that all I’ve got? No, I saved the best till last. I mentioned the adult shell fish for a reason. The immature (small) shells in the youngest rocks have the keyhole and as it matures, the hole disappears! The phenomenon is termed recapitulation (of evolutionary development) theory. This, too, is attacked and it’s hard to find paleontological articles among the masses of anti-evolutionary shouting-down.
Perhaps I’ve wasted my time with you, depending on degree of imperviousness but hopefully some readers will learn something.
I propose here a contest to name the type of trolling that is done by Moser.
He is certainly more sophisticated than the average troll. He doesn’t go for the jugular of emotional upset. His arguments are only persuasive to some of those who are new to the discussion and still on the fence.
Typo correction: Mosher
I think it is interesting that the Dr. Schnoor says “you are wrong,” not “I disagree.” This is the problem with the Climate Change argument. There’s no middle ground. I do think the climate is changing, as it always has. I don’t agree that we need to invest billions of dollars and raise energy prices (and liberals should worry about the poor on that front) to address a naturally occurring phenomenon. I also notice that Dr. Schnoor touts job creation in his closing remarks, but doesn’t address the jobs lost in the coal industry, oil industry, and natural gas industry. The Northeast had problems keeping up with energy needs during the exceptionally cold winter due to the closing of coal fired plants, and it will be worse this coming winter. Environmentalists are fighting a new pipeline to the Northeast that would address the issues of coal plants closing. I’m sorry, but wind and solar are not going to solve the problem by themselves. A nuclear power plant, will also be closed with celebration in the Northeast. These people have no idea what they’re doing. You can’t say “no” to everything, yet they do. I imagine they will also be the first to complain when there are blackouts/brownouts. That is the nature of the beast.
Sure, but reality is real, quite independent of idealization in the minds of those that think that wind energy will keep them warm and lit in the winter.
All it will take is a handful of winters like the last one (only worse) in Maine to have a lot of people rethinking their position. A few weeks of windless, subzero temperatures with a grey, dark overcast, an ice storm to take down the power lines so that energy generated with Evil Coal but from far enough away not to be in My Backyard is no longer available… you get what you pay for.
The entire northern 1/3 of the US would be uninhabitable by civilized humans in the wintertime without burning stuff. Pretty much all of the planet much above 50 degrees N or S latitude is uninhabitable in the winter time without burning stuff. North Carolina (south of that) is at the very least damn uncomfortable in the winter time without burning stuff, although one could probably survive here with a properly designed house and wearing lots of woolies. In Maine, an unheated house in January is simply a fancy coffin for anyone trapped inside for 24 hours unless they bury themselves under a mountain of blankets and pray for rescue. And there is plenty of human habitation still further north, worldwide.
Worst case scenario comparison:
Warming: We warm the planet 2 C. Greenland and Antarctica melt. The ocean rises 5 meters. The Earth’s land surface area loses a band several hundred miles wide around the perimeters of the continents. Humans move, adjust, life goes on, too bad about the polar bears and penguins that fail to adapt.
We stop using carbon for energy tomorrow: Coal magically disappears from the ground, oil is hijacked by space aliens, even natural gas turns out to be contaminated with radioactives and is unusable. The world stops warming, starts to cool. Everybody north of Washington, DC moves south — Humans basically lose the use of all land surface area above maybe 45 degrees and are restricted to the equatorial band. Moving there, they wipe out the rain forest and drain and settle the Everglades. Humans adjust, life goes on, too bad about the alligators and bromeliads that failed to adapt.
Best case: We keep using carbon for energy. Planet fails to warm even a single full degree as negative feedbacks outweigh positive ones (who knew?). Plants are very happy. Humans live where they are, adjust, life goes on, and for the most part Penguins and Rain Forests are equally happy, or at least, are no more in danger than they are already from human encroachment.
rgb
“The entire northern 1/3 of the US would be uninhabitable by civilized humans in the wintertime without burning stuff. Pretty much all of the planet much above 50 degrees N or S latitude is uninhabitable in the winter time without burning stuff. ”
In the smarmy spirit of Dr. Jerry Schnoor, where are the peer reviewed articles to back that statement up?
/sarc
Yirgach,
I have lived most of my life in the northern third of the US. My senior year in high school it was 27 below, wind roaring. I had to put on two coats to walk the two blocks to school, which they then closed for the next two weeks because the gas bill was too high. School ended fourth week of June that year. You need a peer-reviewed paper to tell you that it is cold in the winter in Michigan?
Professor Brown you should let me be your campaign manager, we would clean up…
When the blackouts happen, what will be blamed? = Climate Change…
why are the only pictures on the wall in their office of fire…couple of pyromaniacs…
Dr Schnoor threw the towel in at around 1:21 when the said “even if it is all natural we should still be worried”, way to undermine your already very weak case dude.
I always enjoy the articles provided by rgb and watch for his comments. I liked this:
‘The average of the many climates is nothing at all. In the short run, this trick is useful in weather forecasting as long as one doesn’t try to use it much longer than the time required for the set of possible trajectories to smear out and cover the phase space to where the mean is no longer meaningful.’
Isn’t that the biggest problem with climate science? Averages and probability are useful when trying to nail down tommorow’s forecast but have little value over a longer term.
Dr. Schnoor did a good job defending the incompetent conjecture of AGW, like Al Gore, parroting the IPCC story.As he noted, Mr. Goreham’s rebuttal featured regional effects. Countering, Schnoor claimed the GCMs were global and relied on real physics. Goreham, however, failed to point out the critical physics that the GCMs and the AGW model do not represent.
• Schnoor admitted that the models increase atmospheric humidity with global average surface temperature. Goreham’s rebuttal failed to include that the models parameterize cloud cover so that while the models increase humidity, they do not correspondingly increase cloud cover. Cloud cover is a negative feedback to global warming. It is missing from the models.
• Schnoor remarked that solar variation is too small to be significant in the models. Goreham missed the rebuttal of the burn-off effect, namely that the atmosphere amplifies solar variation by cloud cover response. Cloud cover is a positive feedback to total solar radiation, and that feedback is missing from the GCMs.
• Schnoor protested that the AGW and the models do not rely on correlation, but instead show CO2 causing warming. Goreham missed the rebuttal that models can be made to do whatever the modeler wants, follow the real world or not. Goreham missed the rebuttal that since the invention of the thermometer the global average surface temperature has closely followed Total Solar Radiation with just a pair of lags of about 50 and 150 years. Goreham missed the rebuttal of scientific causality, that for CO2 to cause warming, it must lead the warming. Instead, ice core records show that CO2 lags global warming by about a millennium, the period of the Meridional Overturning Circulation (the Great Conveyor Belt). Goreham missed the rebuttal that IPCC has no support for CO2 to lead warming in order to be the cause of warming.
• Schnoor argued that the Medieval Warm Period was not warmer than the present. Goreham missed the rebuttal that regardless, the present global temperature is 2C to 3C cooler than the last five maxima over 600,000 years, and that it is on an increasing slope. Goreham missed the rebuttal that the climate models zero natural warming as of 1750, and then wrongly attribute the residual warming to humans.
• Schnoor claimed that the US cutting back on fossil fuels was feasible. Goreham missed the rebuttal that that would have a negligible effect on global CO2 emissions when China, India, and Russia fail to cut back. Goreham missed the rebuttal that if fossil fuels are the problem, then the US should end the regulations preventing development of nuclear power.
• Schnoor relied on cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions over many decades, and perhaps since 1750. Goreham missed the rebuttal that CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere, but instead follows Henry’s Law of Solubility, and that Henry’s Law is not represented in the models. Goreham missed the rebuttal that the models have the silly effect of re-absorbing all natural emissions each year, but only 50% of anthropogenic emissions each year, as if the ocean could tell the difference and as if the two species of CO2 didn’t mix irreversibly in the atmosphere. Goreham missed the rebuttal that when IPCC discovered Henry’s Law in trying to resurrect the failed Revelle Factor, IPCC concealed the evidence so as not to confuse the reader. Further, Goreham missed the rebuttal that the natural emissions are not in any kind of balance as modeled, but instead change in sync with temperature, an effect not in the models.
These are just the tip of the iceberg.
The sound rebuttal is neither the regional effects nor the regional failing of the models. The world is just plain lucky that the Sun has been weak over the last century, causing the models to go wrong for the last 18 years. Notwithstanding the failure of the models, the US is still planning on crippling its own economy to the tune of many trillions of dollars, which will drag down the world’s economy just as the US did when it allowed the bond ratings bubble to burst in 2007.
Steve Goram, this was wonderful. I think many commenters here could have refuted the first speaker’s pathetic arguments, but you did it with finesse. I laughed out loud at the black line superimposed over the Chicago temperatures with your comment, “Folks, that’s what all the concern is about.” Thank you for a brilliant job.
Some interesting writing by Dr. Brown and commenters but did anyone actually read the full Steven Mosher comment? Singling out the first paragraph and ignoring the rest results in coming away with the exact opposite of what Mosher said. Dr. Brown saw the first sentence and used it to riff off the usual “skeptic” talking points in a highly embellished way.
You all obviously saw Mosher’s first paragraph from Dr. Brown, so here is some more of the comment. Mosher is hardly saying there is no “debate” in science as you all seem to imply. Do you actually disagree with Mosher’s comment below? Sounds like science 101 to me.
Mosher said “The science is settled doesn’t mean that the science is correct or flawless or certain. The science is settled doesn’t mean there is no room for doubt. Within science there is always doubt. The science is settled
means that scientists no longer find doubting the science to be a productive use of their time.
“Given any theory there is room for doubt. So the question is “should I doubt this and try to over turn it?” Or should I use my time to build on it and improve it at the margins.
Let’s take a simple question like sensitivity. Sensitivity is a measure of how the system as a whole responds to changes in forcings lambda = dT/dF
There are two fundamental reactions to this scientific statement
A) doubt. See willis’ work
B) calculation. See Nic Lewis
That is, faced with a theory you have these choices. You always have these choices, regardless of the theory.
A) doubt the theory and try to show its wrong with the goal of substituting a better understanding.
B) accept the theory and build on, refine it, improve it.
What guides your choice? It’s largely pragmatic. Willis thinks he has a hope of showing the theory wrong. So he works on that. Longshot, but huge upside for him personally. The vast majority of working scientists in the field think that option B will be more practical. Both are rational.
“Each,however, wants to represent his choice as the only logical one. Chances are Willis will fail. Not because he is provably wrong, but rather because of the large amount of work that others would have to abandon were he correct and also because he cannot assemble a replacement theory.
“Settled Science does not refer to epistemic criteria. It means simply that the vast majority don’t want to risk/waste their careers trying to overturn a body of work that they would rather build on than destroy.
The science isn’t settled by argument. It’s settled by folks who vote with their time. They won’t spend their time doubting, because there is a low risk of succeeding and way too much science to re work.”
matayaya,
The whole “settled science” narrative is bogus nonsense.
If you can post verifiable, testable measurements quantifying the percentage of total global warming caused by human emissions, you will have my attention.
But there are no measurements like that, are there? If you have any such measurements, please post them now. Right here.
Any physical process that rises above backrground noise can be measured and quantified. If man-made global warming is significant at all, there certainly must be measurements showing how much we add to global warming.
But there are no such measurements. Doesn’t that bother you even a little bit? The assertions are made constantly that AGW exists. It may. But if it is too small to even measure, then why should anyone be concerned?
The debate isn’t over, my friend. The only thing that really keeps it going is the massive taxpayer funding that pays scientists to find AGW. But they haven’t really found it, have they?
If they have, then post the measurements.
db, I’d be happy to respond to your post but shouldn’t you respond to the thread first. I agree that science is never settled but what about Mosher’s comment about science. “The science is settled doesn’t mean that the science is correct or flawless or certain. The science is settled doesn’t mean there is no room for doubt. Within science there is always doubt. The science is settled
means that scientists no longer find doubting the science to be a productive use of their time.
“Given any theory there is room for doubt. So the question is “should I doubt this and try to over turn it?” Or should I use my time to build on it and improve it at the margins.”
You say “If I can post verifiable, testable measurements quantifying the percentage of total global warming caused by human emissions, you will have my attention.” I suspect getting your attention at this late date is a lost cause. I guess I will have to defer to the authority of IPCC AR5 and before for that, but I doubt you are serious. I read the studies or read summaries of studies that come out almost everyday that address your question. One study won’t help help you if you haven’t been paying attention and trying to keep up. There are thousands. It’s a firehose of information.