Guest essay by Rick Wallace
A useful method for gaining an initial understanding of complex social-psychological phenomena is to collect and compare case studies. Despite the humble character of such material (with respect to its role as evidence), it still performs the vital service of grounding discourse in concrete fact, thereby giving it a substantiality that it would otherwise not have. Another benefit is that once a case study has been brought to peoples’ attention, they can make their own assessment after exploring it further for themselves.
In the course of a personal study of evolutionary biology, which includes the phenomenon of speciation, I had occasion to look over a number of papers concerned with the question of how to define what a species is. Although there are now numerous species definitions, the leading one still seems to be the “biological species concept” or BSC, associated with the names Dobzhansky and Mayr. Roughly speaking, under this definition a species is a reproductively isolated population; this implies that the gene flow from outside that population is at most highly restricted and possibly non-existent. This definition is associated with an account of speciation in which the most common scenario is for two populations that once formed a single species to become separated geographically so that they come to diverge. When they have diverged sufficiently, so that hybrids are infertile or inviable, then they can be regarded as separate species. This is called allopatric speciation.
Now, as I said, by a rough consensus, this is still probably the leading definition – at least for organisms that reproduce sexually. What is interesting is that for 30 to 50 years it has been subjected to continuous criticism from numerous people in the field, including botanists, paleontologists, systematists, as well as field zoologists. Along with their critiques, some have proposed alternative definitions, so that according to a fairly recent (1997) summary, more than 20 different definitions have been put forth. (From what I can tell, the penchant for coming up with alternative definitions has fallen off since the turn of the century, probably because the range of possibilities has now been pretty well covered, so this number is probably still accurate.)
Very early on, the practical usefulness of the BSC was questioned. Here is a typical comment:
“The biological species concept considers the species as a collection of genetically similar populations capable of interbreeding that, through genetically determined isolating mechanisms, are evolving in a pattern distinct from other similar collections of populations. This concept … is the most widely accepted definition of species, although its application to practical taxonomic work is limited and its conceptual bases flawed …”1
And here is another, even stronger, statement. After discussing various perceived deficiencies, especially having to do with ancestor-descendent relationships, the authors say:
“For these reasons, the Biological Species Concept … is an obstruction to empirical evolutionary biology.”2
To be sure, there are plenty of substantive problems, such as, (i) difficult to unravel species-complexes in animals (e.g. birds, butterflies) and even more so in plants, where there is sometimes evidence of widespread and continuing hybridization (and therefore possible gene flow) between closely related species, (ii) uniparental ‘species’, where the clonal lines together retain common, species-like features, just like biparental species (iii) the need to develop classifications that include both extinct species and living ones. One upshot is that many botanists and zoologists have concluded that the BSC cannot replace the classical taxonomic species, based on phenotypic (e.g. morphological, but also genetic) features. Others have argued that “evolutionary” or “phylogenetic” species concepts should be taken as primary. And some researchers have gone further and called for abandoning the notion of species altogether, a position at the opposite pole from the assertion of others that species (as opposed to higher taxa) are the focal points of evolution.
To give the reader a flavor of the discussion, here are some quotes from a 1992 review of a book devoted to the topic of species in biology (obviously, the author of the review is not a nonpartisan observer):
“Most authors … admit that species are real and not arbitrary groups demarcated by humans. There is, however, no agreement about the nature of species, save that it is not adequately described by the biological species concept. Once again we hear the standard catalogue of objections to Mayr’s definition …
“To replace the biological species concept, the authors proffer nearly a dozen new species concepts, some of them quite ingenious.
“The authors snipe at one another’s concepts, with some of the best criticisms coming not from biologists but from philosophers … When the dust has settled, however, only Mayr is still on his feet, with his original concept remaining the simplest and most useful …”3
In other words, to the degree that the BSC remains the prevailing species definition, it is more a matter of still standing after a vigorous and drawn-out brawl than because it has been upheld by workers in the field collectively as the one true account of things4. But I would contend that this is what real scientific consensus looks like. In such cases, discussants never take the ideas in question as sacrosanct, and because – at least in a normal, healthy science – intelligent inquiring intellects are constantly evaluating ideas for themselves and setting them against their own experience, such ideas are subject to vigorous and even harsh examination, often leading to a range of opinion, especially if there are serious conceptual or semantic difficulties (as there are in the case of the species concept).
(In my opinion, this is why Patterson et al. in their 2008 BAMS article were able to say, truly but perversely, that in their terms there was no “consensus” regarding future warming or cooling back in the 1960s and 1970s. At that time climatology was still a normal area of science, so there was bound to be disagreement, especially about future trends.)
Another example comes to mind in this connection, which I will discuss very briefly, since I don’t know the field at all. This is the status of quantum mechanics. Reading Lubos Motl’s blog, The Reference Frame, over the years, one notices that although this is clearly the leading ‘paradigm’ in subatomic physics, there are still any number of people who are quite willing to argue endlessly about whether it is truly valid. Now in this case, these may often be zealots on the fringe, but the message is the same: in a real field of science people don’t line up behind a so-called “consensus”. The image one has, even of a well-established doctrine like quantum mechanics (one which, I gather, has been subject to tests of excruciating rigor for almost 100 years), is not of a phalanx of people standing shoulder to shoulder, chanting in Monty-Pythonesq unison, “This is the Truth!” Instead, there is a general assent along the lines of, “Yeah, this seems to be the way it is” or a more assertive, “Yup, this is the way things are.” And the attitude toward heretics is not expressed as, “You must believe!” but (at least until they become insufferable), “Well, you either get it or you don’t.”
Thus, in real science any state of agreement is labile at best – and establishing a consensus is about the last thing on peoples’ minds. I would go so far as to say that under these conditions, as often as not, a leading idea is a target to take aim at rather than a flag to rally ‘round.
Obviously, this cast of mind is utterly different from what we find in the AGW arena. Which in itself is compelling evidence that the motivations are different in normal science and in (C)AGW.
This brings me to my final point.
What is perhaps most fascinating about modern spectacles like the AGW movement (and here I’m thinking in particular of the Moscow show trials of the 1930s) is that the truth is always right there in front of everyone – and it is always apparent to those who can see. For such people, and this is true of most (but probably not all) AGW skeptics, the fact that some sort of charade is in progress is obvious, even if one does not characterize it in those terms.
Once this is understood it also becomes clear why these affairs are always imbued with an air of intimidation. (In fact, perhaps more than anything else, this aspect is what gives the game away.) This is something that is never present in real scientific discourse, even on those occasions when things get nasty. In such cases (for example the controversy over the wave nature of light in the early 19th century), scientists may get catty, and they may even act to keep work out of print (by negative reviews). But there is no real intimidation (at least none that I know of, and I have some personal experience in this department); there is never a covert message to the effect that, “This is the proper account – and you had better not contradict it!”
1R. R. Sokal. (1973). “The species concept reconsidered”. Systematic Zoology, 22(4), 360-374.
2D. R. Frost & A. G. Kluge. (1994). “A consideration of epistemology in systematic biology, with special reference to species”. Cladistics, 10(3), 259-294.
3J. A. Coyne. (1992). “Much ado about species”. Nature, 357, 289-290.
4Just for the record, I will note that at this point it seems clear that no one of these concepts will prevail over the others, and in fact a more multi-faceted approach to the problem which takes into account several of the species-definition proposals seems to be emerging.
It is interesting that the biological evolution was a chosen example, to compare to climatology. Evolutionary thought has some other interesting comparisons to the AGW field. Since you can’t directly test a hypothesis, you can easily let your imagination run wild, and get away with claiming the results are valid science.
E.g. The evolution of the whale is touted as the prime example showing the gradual evolution of species, and how obvious it is to any observer. But, Dr Gingerich’s Pakicetus fossil, like AGW, is based on the scientist’s thinking of what he wants the data to be, rather than actual data. The Pakicetus fossil was, and still is, often shown with its blow hole, flippers and fluke. However, none of those things were in the original fossil. Dr. Gingerich’s model of whale evolution required that they be there, so he simply added them to the reconstruction.
When a later, more complete model of the same sort of animal showed up, it had all the features of a land animal, including the nose in the front, and with legs, not flippers. But, Dr. Gingerich’s model of whale evolution is not so easily dismissed, and now he claims that the whale’s inner-ear bone is that of a whale, and not a land animal, so this animal must be an ancestor of whales. Though, it seems he has a hard time getting biologists to agree with him. None the less, his imaginary land-to-water transition animal is still touted as a prime, undeniable, example of evolution.
Perhaps worth noting that you can analyse black holes in terms of AC theory, electromagnetism, thermodynamics and many other physical paradigms and those enigmatic holes in the Universe answer you back in your chosen language. As far as we know, there is no single way to treat a black hole since much depends on the kind of questions you chose to ask and it appears to me that the same is probably true of plastic biological systems. I doubt there is ever going to be a satisfactory single definition of species to satisfy all the requirements of all workers in the field so I find it odd that this is not recognised and different definitions adopted for different purposes – so long as they are internally consistent within the particular paradigm under consideration.
In the case of the stultifyingly stupid cagw, everything is always addressed under the starting and startling assumption that everything is by default and de facto caused by human GHG emissions. It is rather akin to a cosmologist interrogating a black hole in terms only of his Aunt’s prize begonias and anyone slipping in a question involving general relativity is a damned heretic.
A lucid and cogent expose on the intolerable audacity of intolerant scientific elitists. Let me suggest another avenue worth exploring is the oft-repeated meme elevating climate alarmism to pseudo-religious status? Here, we needn’t look further than the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial for an analog to the current toxic disposition of climate-crusading zealots. Nearly 100-years on and the battle (pitting modernists against fundamentalists) rages with neither side giving quarter. Yes sir, give me some of that old time religion!
Of course, knowing something exists begs the question as to why it exists. Fundamentally, (no pun intended) the divide between the so called hard sciences and life-sciences resides in a distinction between animate and inanimate objects. Certainly, the ego takes center stage in the nurture of scientific theories; yet, even the most passionate of scientists will disavow a pet theory when faced with contrary information. Here, I’m reminded of a familiar phrase from Dr. Savalgaard, viz., “we can only go where the data takes us”.
Now my friends, I ask you, has either Mann or Schmitt and their (truth obfuscating) cronies behaved in a manner consistent with standards of scientific decency? Nay, we must say, for they cannot disassociate CO2 from human pollutants that have historically harmed the environment. Here, we witness a penchant for (un supported) logical leaps blaming CO2 for the disruption an imagined climatic stasis of the benevolent Gaia. Alas, the stasis has and never will exist, and even the most devout amongst believer’s clings to his signed copy of Silent Spring, all the while suppressing the certain knowledge that plants dig CO2. A religious dichotomy to be sure, but do take care, as cornered cats are dangerous foes.
How very true and complex non-linear dynamical systems are the perfect medium in which to conduct religious conflicts. No matter how well you think you have it all nailed down, there is the ever present unpredictability and just one more cloud over there which looks a bit of a funny shape.
You are perhaps correct in that the cagw nonsense will never go away. Well, it cannot really can it. There can never be a point in time when all of the supporting politicians, “scientists” and media types suddenly turn around and admit that the whole thing is a massively corrupt hoax gone horribly wrong. Or even that the starting assumptions were badly flawed and it has taken them spending $20E12 of your money and the total destruction of the Western economies to find that out when thousands of qualified experts have been telling them that from day 1.
It is likely that the public – and therefore the media – will get progressively even more bored with it than they currently are as nothing much of anything continues not to happen but the hard core will be obliged to retreat from the current ‘mainstream’ cult into a fringe cult from where they will doubtless organise terrorist atrocities.
That is consistent with what Rick Wallace described in his essay.
John
Consensus is invoked when the science is solid, but the public perception is that it is not. See HIV/AIDS, tobacco and vaccinations
It is also invoked when the science is not solid. See the connection between dietary fat and heart attacks. See also CAGW.
The determining thing is that someone thinks the public needs to be convinced of something.
I once had a discussion about quantum physics with one of our Vice Presidents who headed a research/development group that used quantum physics in its work. I asked if it were describing a reality; he answered that they didn’t care whether it did or not, but the mathematics worked.
People know art when they see it, although they don’t agree on what art is.
Rick,
That’s a very nice summary of the species concept. I took a graduate seminar in evolutionary genetics around 2001 and found that every single session – every single seminar – degenerated into an argument about how to properly define a species. I am pretty sure that would still be the case today. A simply definition is taught to kids in school and many undergraduate courses without acknowledging this problem.
However, when you bump the discussion up a notch to evolution in general, the situation becomes very different. Then, you get the AGW approach and the closer analogy.
In fact, I’ve often wondered if AWG took its consensus stance from the evolution folks. As far as I can determine (others may find earlier documents), evolutionary biologist began their consensus campaigns (issuing “position statements”) in 1995 – the AGW crowd took it up in 2001. This is what happened, as far as I have determined.
[I may not be the first to point this out: if so, my apologies. Others allude to something like this above but my point here is more specific]
Creationists in the 1990s were perceived as a real problem for evolutionary theorists and science teachers (in the US primarily). Without getting into a debate at this time about whether or not creationists had a point, the fact is they were pushing back strongly against the practice of teaching evolution as an accepted concept in biological science.
To counter that, biology developed “position statements” on evolution, which usually started with something like this: “all life, including humanity, has descended with modification from common ancestors.”
See the current one here http://tinyurl.com/hcu8cp5 issued by the Society for the Study of Evolution, which also lists links to other position statements on evolution made by dozens of other organizations, including the American Geophysical Union.
Google showed me this: National Association of Biology Teachers adopted a position statement on evolution as early as 1997. http://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/?p=92
[citation listed as: “Adopted by the NABT Board of Directors, 2011. Revised 1997, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2011 (Original Statement 1995). Endorsed by: The Society for the Study of Evolution, 1998; The American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 1998.”]
One could argue that this consensus approach, honed over the years, worked well in preventing creationists from gaining more power within the US education system. Promoters of evolution as a unifying biological concept immediately saw this as a successful maneuver and no doubt others did as well.
I am an evolutionary biologist and wrote my 2004 Ph.D. thesis on speciation, as well as several peer-reviewed papers on the topic – I am totally convinced that evolution IS a unifying concept that’s essential for understanding biology. But in my opinion, these people did a huge disservice to science by resorting to consensus position statements in order to win their ‘battle’ against creationists.
However useful/successful it was for them at the time, it was clear they could not think of any other way to counter the creationist argument except to shut them up.
No matter how you cut it, it wasn’t science. But now it’s the way disagreements are settled and that’s a huge disappointment to me as a scientist.
Dr. Susan Crockford
Correction to above: “Google showed me this: National Association of Biology Teachers adopted a position statement on evolution as early as 1997.” Should read: “as early as 1995.”
To heck with defining ‘species’.
So try your hand at defining (precisely) genera.
Repeat dosage, but one step up.
G
PS I’m fan of L C Smith.
G
“No matter how you cut it, it wasn’t science.”
Susan, I agree it is not science, but why should that be a problem? Given that the arguments against teaching evolution were not really scientific but political, how could they be fought using science?
If they are not faught, then we end up with creation being taught as an equally likely competing scientific theory. If this were to happen, it would be a great dis-service to generations of children, and hence to everyone as we will all rely on the children of today.
As far as science goes, creation is not a viable theory. It is at best a conjecture. Yet there is strong political pressure to teach it. This can only be faught by political means. The consensus approach is one way to do this.
When someone says “this is an alternative theory, you should teach both and let the children decide”, that sounds a very laudible and reasonable approach. But it is not, because there are infinite competing conjectures. A large part of the problem arises because of the different colloquial and scientific meanings of “theory”. What we have is a scientific conjecture (creation) vs a scientific theory (evolution). It would be absurd to give both equal billing in a science class. In religious studies it is a different matter.
So if attacked in a political manner, you have to fight back in a political manner. To try to remain aloof and in the pristine uplands is science is to loose the battle.
seaice1
“As far as science goes, creation is not a viable theory.”
Riiiiiight ! You don’t know how stuff happened, but however it happened God didn’t do it.
Evolution is not a theory, it’s a hypothesis. Creationists don’t think a hypothesis should be taught as fact. But you would keep creationism out of the curriculum on the basis of selective imagination (aka. wishful thinking.) If you cared to investigate honestly, you would learn of the faulty science that lies behind evolution, and find that creationism is indeed a viable hypothesis at least equal to its favoured rival.
Just one example: Look up “Lewis Overthrust” (I think that’s the name) on a creationist website. Evolutionists insist it must be an overthrust because the upper layers contain fossils of “early” critters while the deeper layers have fossils of “more evolved” forms. IOW it’s upside down by the fossils, and yet right side up geologically. An overthrust (one landmass sliding over another) would be evidenced by the results of such grinding action, but no such evidence exists. The rock layers are contiguous. No matter. Evolution presses on to convince the geologists to see that what is not there really is, and up is down and down is up, and adjust the carbon dates to agree. (And we’re back to Alice in Wonderland. Yes, the Disney version where she talks to her cat.)
Creationism does away with such lying nonsense and offers viable explanations. But it gets shouted down by preconceived biases and a flat-earth mentality that says “the evolution is settled.”
“Given that the arguments against teaching evolution were not really scientific but political, how could they be fought using science? If they are not faught (sic), then we end up with creation being taught as an equally likely competing scientific theory.”
Let me correct that for you: Political suppression is used by the status quo against scientific creationism. That is analogous to the warmunists suppressing scientific climatism. Science is used to show where evolution is wrong. Creation should be taught alongside evolution to guard against indoctrination. That shouldn’t frighten anyone who loves science.
seaice1
“A large part of the problem arises because of the different colloquial and scientific meanings of “theory”. What we have is a scientific conjecture (creation) vs a scientific theory (evolution).”
And you deliberately confuse those two definitions to suit your own bias.
“It would be absurd to give both equal billing in a science class. In religious studies it is a different matter.”
So truth depends upon the location of the observer? I don’t see how relativity applies to this.
“all life, including humanity, has descended with modification from common ancestors.”
It is a surprise to me that the only ‘permitted’ interpretation of this idea is that life starting in the first place is so unexpected, so rare, that it must have only happened once, and that everything, literally, is related by descent from that single miraculous event.
Examples of the failure of the single descent line idea abound. Eyes are thought to have developed de novo five times. Fish containing illumination and poisons are thought to have incorporated other creatures. Jellyfish are colonies. So are people. My point is that the unilineal approach to evolution, as a response to classical creationism, is limited in vision and wrong. Another part of the reasoning driving it is to oppose Lamarkism which turns out to have a physical reality after all, just not in all the ways punters fantasised. DNA is a lot more malleable than unilinealists find convenient, and a lot less rigid than suits creationists. The truth lies elsewhere.
I agree that with the evolution/creation controversy we’re seeing some of the same phenomena that we see with AGW – political issues or core beliefs getting mixed in with scientific concerns. So it is indeed another case to consider in this general context (whatever the general context is).
Way back when I was in the biological field, the speciation camp was divided into the lumpers and the splitters. The lumpers already had naming rights and weren’t interested in new species. The splitters didn’t have naming rights and wanted the speciation lifeboat to allow at least a few more people on board. Once on board, splitters became lumpers and would stomp on the remaining fingers clinging to the gunwale.
A colleague related an incident at a meeting when the discussion about whether the Brown and Kodiak bears were (or were not) separate species ended up in a fist fight.
….ended in a fist fight” Seen that happen over “what is the difference between a rainbow trout and a steelhead”
One is also a sailor.
g
There’s nothing quite like having such a natural fly land in your climate change consensus soup:
“The situation is completely different for a CO2 concentration of 240 p.p.m., which is close to that observed at the end of MIS19. In this case all four model versions simulate rapid ice growth several thousands of years before the present and large ice sheets exist already at the present time (Extended Data Fig. 1). This means that the Earth system would already be well on the way towards a new glacial state if the pre-industrial CO2 level had been merely 40 p.p.m. lower than it was during the late Holocene, which is consistent with previous results.”
Paywalled here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7585/abs/nature16494.html
Consensus occurs in science when money and/or position is dependent on consensus.
In areas of science where that is not the case, you get lively debate (or vicious arguments) because people want to make a name for themselves – and that cannot happen by following “consensus”.
Climate science is up a dead end because it insists on consensus – strangely it seems to have forgotten that the current consensus was once heterodox!
Whether the field is physics, chemistry, biology, or climatology, there seems to be a consistent tendency to confound the real world of observations with the theoretical world of models. In science the utility of a model lies in its ability to conveniently summarize observations with sufficient accuracy to suit the investigator’s needs. Thus Newtonian physics, long ago demonstrated to be inaccurate for certain high-resolution measurements, is still the preferred model for many every-day applications.
“Species” is a concept that allows us to group disparate individual life forms based on their similarities and their differences. It is all about ‘classification’ as a tool for analytical thinking. Much as ‘definition’ in grammar uses similarities to assign an object to broader class of objects, and differences to distinguish the object for other objects in the same class. For example, a ‘fire truck’ is a vehicle (broader class) that includes equipment for fighting fires (distinguishing characteristic.
Ultimately the definition of a ‘species’ must be context-sensitive.
Physicists who anguish over the ‘wave-particle duality’ likewise are confounding the real world object (i.e. a photon) with the models (waves, particles) they choose to summarize their observations regarding the photon.
Science depends intimately upon the precise definitions used to summarize our observations of the real world.
The fact the ‘climate scientists’ are still hemming and hawing over such ill-defined concepts such as ‘global warming,’ ‘climate change’, ‘climate variability’, ‘global average temperature,’ etc. and trying to drive SOMEWHERE at great expense without any certainty of where they are or where it would be best to go merely indicates the immature nature of their field.
The terminology needs clear, concise, unambiguous definitions.
tadchem,
“Physicists who anguish over the ‘wave-particle duality’ likewise are confounding the real world object (i.e. a photon) with the models (waves, particles) they choose to summarize their observations regarding the photon.”
Physics students might do that, but I don’t think actual physicists do. The debate over the interpretation of quantum mechanics is partly philosophical but it is also partly over the question of whether there might be a deeper reality behind the equations and whether that reality might be discoverable. From what I’ve read, Einstein was not motivated to discover general relativity by small numerical discrepancies; his motivation was that he objected philosophically to the action-at-a-distance implication of Newtonian gravity.
Einstein was also trying to describe reality as being ether-free. Without a propagating medium, EM waves have to be turned into ‘particles’ like billiard balls in a perfect vacuum. Gravity waves have to become particles to be transmissible. Silliness abounds. Purists are painted into a corner.
Climate “science” is not real science.
It is smarmy people with science degrees, bribed with government salaries and grants, who sit in air conditioned offices and try to “prove” there is a boogeyman currently known as climate change.
To “prove” it, they convert unproven “CO2 is evil” beliefs into computer software, tell the computer CO2 will rise every year from now on, and the computer spits out a piece of paper that says: “Life on Earth will end as we know it”.
The “cure” for every predicted environmental catastrophe (going back to DDT in the 1960s) is always more central government power, spending, and new taxes on corporations.
.
The goobermint scientists get permanent jobs/grants and media attention for being so concerned about the future of our planet.
They have to constantly “adjust” temperature data to prove their computer game predictions were right — why trust those haphazard outdoor measurements when you have a computer model that knows all.
This is “Save the Earth Socialism” — the latest way to sell BIG GOVERNMENT socialism (‘We left wing politicians don’t want more power for ourselves, we want more power to save the Earth for our children!’).
The scientists and their computer games are just props in leftist politicians quest for more power.
The general public knows little about climate science — few people could write one paragraph on the subject … and even fewer, if any, would state the most important points: Earth’s climate is always changing, and the cause is still unknown, but CO2 is not the “climate controller”.
If the general public has no idea the climate is better than it has been in at least 500 years, with faster plant growth and slightly warmer nighttime lows, then it’s easy to scare them with the climate change or any other boogeyman.
Scared people too quickly surrender freedom to give their government more power to fight the “crisis”, whether a real or imaginary crisis.
Climate change is an imaginary crisis.
Climate blog for non-scientists:
No ads, no money for me
A public service
http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com
People trust scientists but don’t trust politicians. The political class takes advantage of this by supporting the consensus created by selective funding into predetermined scientific studies. The results of the studies along with the media blitz show the scientists and the science to be in a consensus position and therefore requires a political solution. Problem…action…solution describe the Hegelian Dialectic
“Hegelian conflicts steer every political arena on the planet, from the United Nations to the major American political parties, all the way down to local school boards and community councils. Dialogues and consensus-building are primary tools of the dialectic”
Call me a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist if you want, but why does the MSM (main stream media) only cover the catastrophic problems associated with CO2/global warming/climate change. Why are contrary views never presented? Why are the governments looking to outlaw “denialist” views?
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm
The problem in the field of “AGW controversy” is the lack of clear definitions, and the reckless mix-up of different aspects. For example: A temperature rise is not necessarily results in global warming (GW), and global warming (GW) is not necessarily related to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The existence and cause of climate change has not necessarily something to do any increase or decrease in instrumental temperature records. Here are many details on this issue: http://oceansgovernclimate.com/end-of-science-consensus-and-the-agw-controversy/.
It’s more complicated than that.
Assuming average temperature is a proxy for our planet’s climate:
A temperature rise IS “global” warming if it affects most of the globe — but only local warming if there are some hot spots and most of the globe is barely affected or unaffected.
Global warming is most likely natural, and manmade.
Cities are much warmer than surrounding countrysides. Economic growth in the vicinity of surface thermometers causes warming — perhaps enough to affect the global average.
Coal power plants continuously throwing dark soot on the Arctic must cause some local warming through albedo changes.
Measuring the average ocean temperature is so difficult, and haphazard, I can’t imagine a margin of error less than +/- 1 degree C.
In addition, 1880s surface thermometers tended to read low = exaggerating warming since 1880.
It’s possible the average temperature is about the same as in 1880, or maybe already two degrees C. higher? No one knows for sure.
The HUGE quantity of hot air coming from the mouths of leftists about a coming climate change catastrophe may be the most important “cause” of global warming (specifically, their “adjusted data”, climate computer games, infilled data, etc.).
If not for leftist blabbermouths, I’d be enjoying the best climate on Earth in at least 500 years — my green plants are happy about more CO2 in the air too.
I think the definitions are already clear — it’s the assumptions and scary predictions that are WRONG.
The climate physics model is wrong — CO2 is not the climate controller, and never was.
The computer game forecasts have been wrong for 40 years so far.
People who know next to nothing about climate history, such as Al Bore, the Pope, and President O’Bummer, are taken seriously about climate change for no logical reason.
Free climate blog for non-scientists
No ads. No money for me A public service:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
75 out of 77 (97%) consent with your views. The consensus is settled!
Rick ==> You should check out the long-standing scientific controversy commonly known as “The Salt Wars”- in which the enforced consensus position (held by the various Heart and Blood Medical associations, the leadership of which does the revolving door thing with the NIH and FDA) is that “everyone must be forced to reduce their salt intake” to “save millions of lives”. The contrary position is the normal medical science — only a certain percentage of humans are highly salt sensitive and only they will benefit from salt reduction — for everyone else, enforced salt reduction will have either no effect or a negative effect.
The history of the Salt Wars prequels the Climate Wars —
I agree that there seem to be some significant resemblances between this controversy and AGW. I will check it out. I think it is potentially useful to consider these various cases together, to see how they’re related, how they differ, and so forth. The downside is that in each case there’s a considerable amount of evidence to consider.
Rick ==> See Gary Taubes 1998: http://garytaubes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/science-political-science-of-salt.pdf
and his 2012 update: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/opinion/sunday/we-only-think-we-know-the-truth-about-salt.html
Check Google for recent news on salt reduction regulations from the NY City Health department.
Fascinating.