Global Warming/Talk

EditEdit InfoInfo ArticleArticle
Search:    

PIlogo.jpg

Rules for philosophizing:
Rule 1. Back your argument up
Rule 2. Respect other people’s work
Rule 3. Know thyself
Rule 4. Be open to other ideas
Rule 5. Stick to the point
Rule 6. Discuss

If the topic you want to address is under discussion below, please double click the message you want to respond to to insert your response, instead of using the Comment box.


New topic:

dont enter into this box:


  1. The PI font
  2. an intesting "case study"
    1. 3 points
  3. Martin Cohen's article in THES
  4. Martin Cohen's article in THES
  5. Nick Beech vs Doc Martin Cohen
  6. Global warming references
    1. Errors piling up
  7. Why is the government so desperate to only show one point of view on this matter and why are global warming sceptics silenced?

The PI font

Thanks, Norman, for these beautiful titles! ( Junk Science, Global Cooling is there). This is a major improvement! —PerigGouanvic

Thanks P-A!

I've an idea - we could start a page 'titles' and anyone who wants a title can just mention it here, text, pixel size and colurs approximately, and the old Mac will be wheeled out to do the rest!

2009-09-15 18:10:36   You know, this is a great page, but I wonder if it counts as 'questions'. I mean maybe we ought to redraft parts of it a bit to be clearer what the quesstions are, rather than appearing as just putting 'our answers'?

I think Ahmed raised this as an issue earlier, that must indicate a problem. —docmartin

2009-09-15 20:41:51   - How did Global Warming theory become a fact? — —PerigGouanvic

2009-09-16 12:34:29   That's a good question! We could use that on the website too...`! —90.62.211.175

2009-09-16 22:09:47   Is Global Warming science another example of the dangerous effects of treating science as a body of incontrovertible truth? ... was removed.

How does this look, especially do the lead author of this investigation?
I like it — I think it leads the way to an even better article, no? —PerigGouanvic

2009-09-17 03:36:31  

an intesting "case study"

The IPCC sometimes comes accross facts; interesting to see how they deal with it.
[WWW]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html

World's climate could cool first, warm later

Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.

"People will say this is global warming disappearing," he told more than 1500 of the world's top climate scientists gathering in Geneva at the UN's World Climate Conference.

"I am not one of the sceptics," insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany. "However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it."

Few climate scientists go as far as Latif, an author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But more and more agree that the short-term prognosis for climate change is much less certain than once thought. ...

2009-09-17 04:09:06   seriously, this whole text is a piece for an anthology of junk science! —PerigGouanvic

3 points

Hey, that is absolutely the right stuff to finish the page on - can you add it in?

On the other hand, re, the change of title - that bit I liked! It is (after all) put as question). I think thus it was better before. The dogmatic assertions that worried me are a bit later in the piece - I've given a new start to it now.

I found that the page is not accessible (not just they can't edit ti - they can't read it!) to non-logged in users - we don't want hat! How can the settings be changed?

2009-09-17 17:02:20   re: security settings. I changed the security settings... is this bug solved now? —PerigGouanvic

2009-09-17 21:39:45   On behalf of anonymous wikimice everywhere, yes, the page is now fully online and ready to defenestrate the Global Warming fanatics —86.220.84.114

2009-09-20 18:00:45   This is a good resource: angry Ozzie prof denying the warming!

[WWW]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Spot on stuff! —docmartin

2009-10-23 16:51:13   What is needed, I think, is a little history of the 'global threats' that justified 'global governance'. We had the global threat of the nuclear bomb (artificially fed by the artificial feeding of the cold war, when there were true opportunities to cease it), we have the global threat of terrorism, so conveniently without borders, and this global warming thing. Global, global, global. We should investigate about the agents who seek to promote, through the global threat discourse, their accession to absolute power. —PerigGouanvic

2009-12-15 19:20:18   Interesting comment over at the Higher...

# Alamodude 15 December, 2009

Nigel, yes and add to your post that John Holdern, Obama's "Science" Czar (look up the definition of Czar) is a forced population control advocate who has worked with the author of The Population Bomb for years. Obama will weigh in at Copenhagen later this week. So human nature and multiple agendas have hi-jacked all the good intentions, fueled by poor- to- junk science. The only way to turn the herd in the correct direction is to go back to basics in science. Baseline and metrically measure, define destinations/objectives and then pathways to get there overcoming negative human nature. The Chinese come at it from the Survival of the Fittest angle. The Greens from the Compassion angle. Real Scientists from the Truth as we can measure it. Politicals want power and fame. Business wants profits. We all want to live in a better world. The definition of that "better world" is both relative and absolute. Baseline to the absolutes and drive the herd with that. or, we will have more of this: China has declared that controlling population growth is the final solution to climate change. This pronouncement officially linked the zeal for population control with climate hysteria, surfacing an issue that has been quietly at the heart of Malthusian writings since Obama science czar John Holdren began writing college textbooks on "Eco-science" with Paul Ehrlich of "Population Bomb" infamy. "Dealing with climate issues is not simply an issue of carbon dioxide emission reduction, but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture, Zhao Baige, vice minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China said at the U.N. Copenhagen Climate Summit. China's population control measures have resulted in 400 million fewer births, translating into 18 million fewer tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year, Zhao claimed. Thomas Wire of the London School of Economics has advanced similar research. In an August 2009 paper titled "Reducing future carbon emissions by investing in family planning," Wire argued that for every $7 spent on family planning, carbon emissions would be abated by one ton. Wire's research was motivated by a U.N. effort to show family planning as a population control measure could be justified on a cost-efficiency basis. "Each $7 spent on basic family planning would reduce carbon emissions by more than one ton," whereas it would cost $13 for reduced deforestation, $24 to use wind technology, $51 for solar power, $93 for introducing hybrid cars and $131 for electric vehicles, Wire concluded.

You couldn't make it up, could you! —docmartin

Martin Cohen's article in THES

2009-12-18 15:24:31  
Martin Cohen 17 December, 2009
Re: Nick Beech (11 and 16 December, 2009) who asks: 1) what definition, or guide, do you follow in your principle of 'rationality' and its correlative 'rational behaviour'? and Jon Butterworth (12 December, 2009) and perhaps this was a query in other people's minds too, I think it is a good question and if I did not respond earlier it is because it seemed to me to be tangential to the 'debate' here, even though (admittedly) it is about the 'rationality' of policies based on a supposed problem with man-made CO2. Anyway, without wishing to 'personalise' the issue, here is what I had in mind when I raised the spectre of irrationality!. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . As many of us will know, in social science circles, rational behaviour is any behaviour that is 'in accord with your aims'. Weber offers various jargony levels of rationality, of which being 'logical' is of course much admired. Now I don't personally go along with any of this, as indeed it has rightly been pointed out that the Nazi death-camps were a very rational exercise, given their aims. In fact, I don't even go along 'personally' with a weaker' kind of worship f rationalism that seems to be there when people defer to 'scientists' and ' experts' with their 'evidence'. The reason is that 'personally', I want to allow primacy for values, that is to say, a policy is correct if it is harmonious (consistent with) certain values.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To cut to the quick, I am using rationality here as a measure of consistency - if you hold one thing to be true or important, then you should not do things that assume it to be either not true, or unimportant. For example, if you are a scientist who believes in the integrity of your data, you should not make irregular and bizarre adjustments to it to force the data to fit your desired pattern. The 'hockeystick' and indeed claims about 'global' (atmospheric? /sea surface? deep ocean?) record high temperatures all seem to me to be irrational in this sense. Even 'if' I had excellent CO2 and temperature records, say for the shed at the bottom of my garden, and these showed higher levels of the one preceding the other by say 200-1000 years (as it is supposed to require) it is completely 'irrational' to grub around for recent evidence of 'unusual' weather events - and everyone knows that - even the people doing it! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Another kind of irrationality in that it involves contradiction, is there in the green movement supporting this theory, when the effects are to hasten deforestation and species loss, to encourage Nuclear power and to disempower local communities at the expense of governments.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A third instance of irrationality it seems to me is there in the actions of those who nominally defend social justice and the 'poor countries' in supporting a politics which is premised on a transfer of resources from the poor majority to the rich minority. We see this already within countries where fuel taxes affect the weaker members of the community far more than the George Monbiots and Antonia Seniors (the London Guardian and London Times' Climate Change 'experts' respectively). Let alone the gifts to the well-off to help them buy new cars! In the wider, macro-economic context, the profferred intention to help poor people living on atolls or in dry African savannahs, is held despite the fact that the developed rich world makes its profits out of 'low energy' innovation, design and services, while the developing world has only those energy intensive industries and CO2/ methane producing agricultural activities.

Alamodude 17 December, 2009
You can’t cut through the clutter by adding to it. Technology/Media is amplifying the clutter affect. This article/thread is basically a sales pitch by all the various agendas. Mostly using scare tactics, trying to "make ya look" with the biggest catastrophe, moving from Climate to "we're all gonna die because we are running out of...food, oil, water, "You Name it" [WWW]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifFWFYfQi2k&feature=player_embedded#at=19 As a study of human nature, it's quite interesting, but we can predict who will win. Who won this battle of the one-man bands in the PIXAR bit? Not surprisingly, the answer is “no one.” The same thing happens in real-world sales of XWZ. You and your competition are blasting messages and new XYZs into the marketplace/ideological consumption place, hoping something sticks. The moment you announce a new XYZ, your competition is meeting (and beating) your innovation. You shout louder, they shout even louder. You get the picture. We’ve been there. Companies/Nations/Ideologies create war rooms and fight plans and all kinds of competitive battlefields. In fact, the competitor can begin to consume your attention. Can you spell EAU and CRU? If you stop and think about it…who is missing in action from this battle? Only the person that matters most — your buyer, aka us, we the people of the Globe. What is your war with the competition doing to your prospects? Confusing them (us), that’s what. The amount of information your prospect must sift through to find the answer to our problems is increasing by 33% every year. We are already overloaded with information, and the incessant battle of the competitive bands is only contributing to our malaise. It’s no wonder we and our competitors all begin to sound the same. It literally becomes a din of noise. These street musicians didn’t care what their young patron wanted or needed to hear. They were too obsessed with outdoing each other. They were sure if the “buyer” heard one more thing she would surely want to pay them. You can’t cut through the clutter by adding to it. Notice how when the little girl picked up a single instrument and began to play a completely unique tune, someone gave her a whole bag of money. It didn’t take “more power” to win the deal. It took a simpler, well-placed message that stood out from the crowded, noisy marketplace. Where has your message gotten too complicated? Where can you cut back on the noise and focus on that simple story that sets you apart? How can you make it easier for customers (We the People of the Globe) to choose you? if you want to be serious about changing human behavior, study it.That's a good beginning. And you can't get somewhere if you don't know where the destination is.

Alamodude 17 December, 2009
Here is where the herd is headed, would any one like to follow this herd? Copenhagen summit veering towards farce, warns Ed Miliband. The climate change summit in Copenhagen was in jeopardy tonight with the complex negotiations falling far behind schedule as the climate secretary, Ed Miliband, warned of a "farce". One Man Bands....must = farce? Is the Cascade Theory for the case of Climate in danger of being.........Scattered, disrupted? Meaning it's attached to the Strong nuclear forces, which can be disrupted? Or is it going to remain intact, meaning it's attached to the Weak nuclear forces, which can not be broken? Can Entanglement save the day? Or will there be a severe nuclear reaction as the Strong forces are disrupted and the herd scatters? Stay tuned....

Alamodude 17 December, 2009
Confirmation more each day AGW data was manipulated/is being manipulated. A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming. The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years. Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is. Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data. The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations. The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century. The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations. On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations. IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations. The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration. Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

Ross Taylor 18 December, 2009
Excellent article, Martin, and well done TES for publishing it. Those who attack it as "drivel" and "unscientific" only demonstrate the good sense of your conclusions. I am extremely weary of this type (who seem to be in the majority within the AGW believing community) who consistently use ad hominem (whether express or implied); who state or imply that if you are not a climatologist you do not have the qualifications to understand the complexity of the issues involved; and if you are a climatologist and dissent you are either a crank or in the pay of big oil. In other words, nobody is qualified to speak on the subject unless they agree with CO2 driven AGW. I hate to break it to you guys, there are other brains on this planet who are not climatologists and who are perfectly capable of understanding the science, have made it a point to consider the science very carefully and have come to their own conclusions. They will hold these conclusions until there is real evidence to the contrary.

Nick Beech 18 December, 2009
Thank you Martin (who knows if you are, but I'm assuming that for the purpose of our conversation) for attending to my question, I'm very grateful. I think you're being a bit 'descriptive' in your definition of 'rationality' and it's causing some problems in your critique, so I'd just like to clarify the position......(I like this touch of .... to produce para. breaks by the way).................................................................. 1) You begin by asserting that a particularly popular definition of rationality is expressed in the relation between aims and actions: that if actions are consistent with aims then they are 'rational'.......................................................................................... 2) You then qualify this, on the principle that certain actions—and you use the Nazi death camps as an example—could, on that basis, be defined as 'rational', as they are consistent with aims, though they appear to be ethically or morally repugnant. You therefore add an ethical limiter on the definition of rationality at this point, arguing that you place primacy on 'values' .......................................................................................................... 3) At this point it would have been useful for some kind of account of how you're using values to limit the scope of rational action: I realise you're only responding in a blog, but classical humanist; liberal; egalitarian; socialist; etc. short-hand might have been helpful. I say this because it seems to me that you are using 'rationality' and 'irrationality' on universal, or at least 'general' lines, such that, if we can agree on what defines 'rational' action (later you say 'policy', not quite the same, but it will do for our purposes) then we can also agree on what is 'right' action. But what if our 'values' are different, and impinge on the interpretation of the action differently? .......................................................................................................... 4) Anyway, it doesn't really seem to matter, because you pretty quickly develop a new definition of rationality, similar to (1): 'To cut to the quick, I am using rationality here as a measure of consistency - if you hold one thing to be true or important, then you should not do things that assume it to be either not true, or unimportant.' And you give some descriptions of things that you understand as, what I think you mean, logically inconsistent. So it is logically inconsistent (or 'irrational') to believe A and at the same time to believe not-A. Actually your examples are closer to (1), as what you suggest is that it is irrational to 'believe' in the integrity of 'data' whilst conducting 'actions' that affect the interpretation of that data (that's something we should bare in mind here, that the action in this instance is an action of interpretation: the data still exists, it hasn't been 'destroyed' or 'ignored', it's been interpreted). I'm not sure what the 'garden shed' allegory actually adds to this, so I'll leave it, it doesn't seem to me either rational or irrational according to your criteria, you're just talking about collecting a random set of data and then saying 'this is random'. What you do add, is that 'rationality' is not just a case of consistency of aims and actions, it is a consistency of sets of beliefs. ............................................................................................................. 5) You then go on to argue that those in the 'green movement' are acting irrationally when they argue for a policy, based on AGW that will lead to deforestation, nuclear energy, etc. According to your definitions of rationality provided in (1) and (4) you MIGHT be right, this might be inconsistent with 'green movement' aims. I guess that depends on the faction of the 'green movement' that you are talking to. Some members of the 'green movement' (famously James Lovelock) seem to place AGW on a higher priority list than preventing nuclear proliferation, the policy (action) that produces this is not then, under your definition, irrational according to (1) but might be according to definition (4) if you can show that you cannot logically (consistently or coherently) hold the two aims/beliefs at the same time. But you haven't actually done that—they seem logically consistent to me, as long as the first (AGW) is understood to be so catastrophic that the second (nuclear proliferation) just isn't as bad. Even if you can show they are inconsistent, you can't impute it to the 'whole' green movement, because there remains a politics to that movement, it isn't just a 'block', many people disagree with Lovelock's proposition. You could also introduce (3) again, and suggest that there is a 'value' limiter on the action. But we don't know what that might be (because nuclear energy is 'undemocratic' or 'non-egalitarian', or what?). ..........................................................................................................

Nick Beech 18 December, 2009
6) At the same time, it does assume that the 'policy' (for our purposes the 'action') really is connected with the 'aims' of the 'green movement': ie. that the action is of the same subject as the aim. It would be pretty rich of us to accuse proselytising vegetarians of being 'irrational' because supermarkets are driving down the price of meat and so encouraging the consumption of animal products. The 'vegetarians' have a particular set of aims (not eating meat) but they are not 'acting' in this example; the supermarkets are. Similarly, the 'green movement' (assuming now that it is a coherent movement) may have the AIM of both reducing CO2 emissions and protecting/nurturing natural habitats, winding down nuclear energy production, etc. These may not be considered in the development of policy — the ACTION — being conducted by states and corporate interests who are NOT of the 'green movement'. The policy generated at Copenhagen is NOT the same as the evidence produced for Copenhagen: the IPCC does NOT set policy, it offers evidence of what is going on in the climate. Many in the 'green movement' accept that evidence, and have developed a set of 'aims' based on that evidence. None of this is 'irrational' according to your criteria. States represented at Copenhagen develop the policy. They are not the same and are contradictory to the aims of the 'green movement' (hence protests, arrests, anger from greens in the press, etc.) Again, however, this is not 'irrational' according to your criteria, because we are discussing different subjects: the green movement with its aims, and states with their actions. ............................................................................................................ 7) The problem I raise at (6)—how does your definition of 'rationality' apply to two different 'subjects' holding different aims and actions— is relevant to your final paragraph. You impute a set of actions (policies) to a group of people who do not support those actions, and hold different aims from those who have acted (developed those policies). George Monbiot, for example, has been quite explicit in rejecting all kinds of policies of the UK and US governments (and others) that have the stated 'aim' of solving 'global warming'. He has specifically attended to the problems of 'carbon trading' and non-progressive tax policies that CLAIM to be consistent with HIS aims, but are in fact contradictory. It is not then in the 'green movement' that you need to look for 'irrational' behaviour, but in those government departments that develop policy (are conducting the 'action' which you see as contradicting the 'aim'). .................................................................................................... 8) Of course, it might be true that with a full account of (2) you can argue that even without the 'action' of government policy, there is an 'irrationality' WITHIN the 'green movement'. You could do so by demonstrating that the ethical limiter that you introduce at (2) is such that it would be necessarily contradictory to hold principles of social justice at the same time as accepting the evidence for AGW and aiming to act on that evidence. I don't know how that argument could be constructed and it would be interesting to hear what you think. I don't think you can just 'assume' that responding to AGW 'necessarily' means transferring resources from 'poor' to 'rich', nor that responding to AGW 'necessarily' means further deforestation and local environmental degradation. A lot of the literature I have read suggests quite the opposite. But it might be possible, and I'd be interested to see where you start (perhaps there is some radical 'disjunction' between the concept of 'climate' and concepts of the 'social', such that social justice cannot be conceived within both sets?)................................................................................................... 9) Finally, sorry for the length of this message, but I am relieved that we are getting somewhere with the discussion. It seems to me important, because it 'untangles' the logical, ethical, and political questions from the issue of 'science'. I don't actually hold that 'science' is free from these concerns, and I get frustrated when 'science' is treated as a value free, 'empirical' in a crude sense, 'function' that doesn't operate in the world that everything else does. BUT, that doesn't mean that, when faced with problems generated within scientific debate, we can abandon centuries of hard work gone into thinking through logical and ethical dilemmas. For all those (it probably is only few) people reading this conversation, be aware, that I am not suggesting that Martin Cohen, or anyone else, is 'right' or 'wrong' on any of these issues. I am trying to find out what they 'think'...'

Martin Cohen 18 December, 2009
Nick, thanks for your coments too. I think (as mentioned already) that to pursue tangential strands in the 'debate' such as philosophical definitions of rationality, we need to do it selsewhere. If you like email me direct, or (better) start a page on philosophical-investigations.org. The points you are making are worth exploring, but this is not really the place to do so... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thanks to everyone who has participated, the invitation is there likewise, and I'm hoping the Higher can (and urging them to!) enlarge their commenting system to create something that reflects the uniquely thoughtful and well-qualified community the magazine serves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In the meantime, all readers of course can 'carry on commenting' here, though!

Nick Beech 18 December, 2009
I'm not sure I understand why you think this is tangential. Do you think that you have offered something else to the debate, other than the claim that to 'believe' in AGW is irrational? What else have you added to what we already know? Are you saying that there are people on this thread who have unearthed some devastating evidence against AGW? I haven't seen any. You don't offer an epistemological difference to those who accept AGW. Your whole article is rhetorical and you have said yourself it isn't about 'science'. So what else is there to 'debate' if it isn't the logical foundations of your argument? —128.40.150.38

2009-12-18 15:28:08   There, I've attached the thread to this site of yours, so that we can finish this, because I think it's irritating if we've both put time into something and we don't round it off. Now, without resorting to some empiricist claims about how you 'know' or are 'convinced' that 'AGW' is not happening, because you have read some paper some where that confirms that: what is the logical position of your claim that accepting AGW is 'irrational'? Please attend to the substantive points I've raised, otherwise we can't get anywhere. —NickBeech

2009-12-18 18:49:14   Hullo Nick, and welcome to PI. Are you the Nick Beech at UCL?

I'm not sure we can progress if you adopt a hectoring tone- 'Please attend to the substantive points I've raised, otherwise we can't get anywhere', so let's start by identifying what the 'philosophical investigtion' is here. Is the question - as put in the article and here: is support for the theory oc 'man-dade global warming' irrational?

Then I've given some definitionss and you responded (I think usefully) to these - but perhaps we need to be clearer what we are saying.

I've given some 'examples' of what I am calling irrationality - we could deal with these in detail too.

Assuming we getsomewhere, it would surely make sense to start a new page - something along the lines of the question above, but for 'title purposes' it nees to be shorter and snappier, eg, 'Is support for 'global warming' irrational?'

Martin Cohen's article in THES

Yes, I am Nick Beech from UCL.

Sorry: still trying to figure out how to use the site. Not very used to this sort of thing. Sorry about hectoring tone, by 'will you' I meant: could you respond to the substantive points raised, not 'I command' or 'you will', just I noticed on the previous thread that anyone could reply to anything and so the dialogue isn't really a dialogue, it's just a random collection of 'thoughts'. By 'attend', well you'll see how I use that word below.

As you say, you've given some 'examples'. But those don't really act as definitions, because we never know what is included or excluded (you could always add another 'example' some other time, and I'd still not know what definition you are using). That's why I tried to respond by abstracting basic principles from your examples, to see whether they themselves remain logically consistent.

I don't think they do (remain logically consistent in themselves), and that is what I'm attending to (see what I mean by 'attend'). Given that I felt that one abstract definition of 'rationality' provided by your examples was 'logically consistent beliefs' I think that's important.

I also presented some directed questions (as in: specific) and wonder if you could answer those?

The title you suggest 'Is support for 'Global warming' irrational?' is itself an irrational statement, or at least doesn't attend to anything that we've been discussing. No-one 'supports' global-warming (you don't, I don't, no-one I've seen responding to your article does), just as no-one 'supports' the gravitational influence of the moon, the existence of black holes, or the first law of thermodynamics, the existence of god/s, the existence of extraterrestrial life, etc. The question concerns 'belief'. If the title were to read "Is belief in 'Global Warming" irrational?' that would be better. Still, it wouldn't really be an issue. You have outlined a number of different ways in which one might believe that the 'globe' is 'warming', but your main argument concerns the relation between the human being and its activities and global warming. That means the title might be 'Is belief in 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' irrational?' That seems much closer to what you have been discussing. Still, I'm a little bothered by it as a philosophical investigation—it means that we would have to deal with the debate in a very abstract way: what is 'belief', what is 'AGW', and what is 'irrational'? As you know, I'm not shy of abstractions, but I do wonder how useful that question is. There surely can't be anything irrational in 'believing in AGW' as per se possible, and therefore nothing particularly 'irrational' about it. There isn't anything inconsistent in the belief, is what I mean. Believing in a particular 'thing' isn't really ever 'irrational', it surely comes to how that belief fits in with all sorts of other beliefs (the only 'belief' I can think of as fundamentally irrational on the fly is 'I believe that I cannot believe', along the Russell paradox). We could go for 'Is belief in AGW, given the evidence, irrational?' But then, I think, we've lost the 'snappyness' that you are looking for. So, my suggestion would be: 'What is 'irrational'?' We can then begin with my query: how do you define the 'rational'? Your response (examples). My reply...
— Nick Beech

2009-12-20 03:39:09   Himalayan Glaciers Not Melting

[WWW]http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-melting

According to a report in the journal Science, “several Western experts who have conducted studies in the region agree with Raina's nuanced analysis—even if it clashes with IPCC's take on the Himalayas.” The “extremely provocative” findings “are consistent with what I have learned independently,” says Jeffrey S. Kargel, a glaciologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson. Many glaciers in the Karakoram Mountains, on the border of India and Pakistan, have “stabilized or undergone an aggressive advance,” he says, citing new evidence gathered by a team led by Michael Bishop, a mountain geomorphologist at the University of Nebraska.

Having recently returned from an expedition to K2, one of the highest peaks in the world, Canadian glaciologist Kenneth Hewitt says he observed five advancing glaciers and only a single one in retreat. Such evidence “challenges the view that the upper Indus glaciers are ‘disappearing’ quickly and will be gone in 30 years,” said Hewitt. “There is no evidence to support this view and, indeed, rates of retreat have been less in the past 30 years than the previous 60 years.”

Other researchers and noted experts have raised their voices in support of Raina's conclusions. According to Himalayan glacier specialist John “Jack” Shroder, the only possible conclusion is that IPCC's Himalaya assessment got it “horribly wrong.” The University of Nebraska researcher adds, “They were too quick to jump to conclusions on too little data —PerigGouanvic

Intersting, thanks Perig. Perhaps we could have a new page for this sort of 'random' evidence?

DocM

2009-12-20 23:47:27   We could insert here a reference/link to this page? —PerigGouanvic

2009-12-21 00:36:58   exactly here: And About those "melting glaciers…"

50 glaciers are advancing in New Zealand, others are growing in Alaska, Switzerland, the Himalayas, and even our old friend, Mt. St. Helens is sprouting a brand new crater glacier that is advancing at 3 feet per year. In general, we found growing glaciers outpacing melting glaciers by a good margin. —PerigGouanvic

Go for it! (Before the ice crushes the Global Warming summit). - —Docmartin

Nick Beech vs Doc Martin Cohen

Nick,

— hope you don't mind if i call you this way —
You should retract those earlier comments. I refer to: "No-one 'supports' global-warming (you don't, I don't, no-one I've seen responding to your article does), just as no-one 'supports' the gravitational influence of the moon, the existence of black holes, or the first law of thermodynamics, the existence of god/s, the existence of extraterrestrial life, etc.".

Perhaps Doc will agree to this rudeness (in portraying the 'opponent') as the usual, unavoidable, consequence of discussing loaded topics, such as Global Warming, where one believes that the other is putting humanity in danger, and the other side believes that the former is promoting irrationality and fear.

I'll ask you, however: just retract and apologize for this waste of time and energy, okay?
—Perig Gouanvic

Dear Perig Gouanvic,

I don't mind if you call me Nick at all, it's my name.

I don't really want to retract the comments. I made the comments because the clearer the question is, the clearer the answer. I certainly wasn't trying to be rude to Martin Cohen. The sentence you indicate wasn't directed to establish a position contra-Cohen, either 'for' or 'against' belief in AGW. I thought it was clear, but if not I apologise. My point was that if we were to phrase the title of the debate in that way, the debate itself would immediately open itself to a criticism: that no-one is claiming to 'support' AGW nor does anyone claim to 'support' 'non-AGW' (if we can put it like that).

You may not be aware of this, but in my response to Martin Cohen, I made it very clear that I am NOT an 'opponent' to his position on AGW. I'm a bit confused by the nature of your comment though. I must say, it reads as if you're angry with me—that I'm wasting someone's time. As one of the few people who has bothered to continue discussing the issue with Martin Cohen, a topic he raised, one which he invited me to continue, on the basis that it was of interest to him, I'm surprised by this.

I thought this was a philosophy forum, and that it was open to new users. If it's just a bunch of like minded people who all agree with each other, or only discuss things in very particular ways, that's fine, and I'll leave you all alone.

I just thought it would be interesting to develop the logical foundations of Cohen's position.

Do let me know,

Nick

Addition: I would add that I don't think that your (Perig Gouanvic) characterisation of the debate is correct when you say 'where one believes that the other is putting humanity in danger, and the other side believes that the former is promoting irrationality and fear'. Not that those aren't statements often made in the debate Martin Cohen is engaged in, but it seems to me that both 'sides' use the same claims: I read plenty of comments that suggested that those who agreed with Martin Cohen's position BOTH endangered humanity AND spread irrationality and fear; and I feel that Martin Cohen robustly stated the same thing for his 'side' of the debate (that those who believe in AGW are spreading irrationality and fear, and those that follow that in terms of policy endanger many members of humanity). So I think the philosophical issue is more difficult than your depiction allows for.

Best,

Nick

2009-12-22 20:57:18   Hi Nick, Perig.

Well, you see, I said 'Global Warming' as an abbreviation suitable for a page title. Confuses things though, you're right. Really you are interested in exploring what people mean when they talk about being 'rational' and irrational'. And that is somethign well worth asking. The site does have a bias, as you suspect - we don't like simplistic accusations of 'irrationality' levelled at unconventional approaches (eg. to health) - but nor do we sign up for the grand claims of science to be 'cooly rational'. Which is to say like Feyerabend, that a bit of irrationality is good and that rationality alone never got anyone anywhere.

I made soem points on this for the article, perhaps it woudl be helpful to put them here - see what you think. They explain why I used this 'double-edged' term in the article.

Several people, and not just Chris Ormell (THE letters 17 December 2009) do not see why I argued in the article 'Beyond Debate' (10 December 2009) that outlawing incandescent light bulbs while encouraging cars to switch to electricity was 'irrational'. The remark was intended to be a little tongue-in-cheek, but I still think is basically correct. How many ways shall we count it?

First of all, the sheer amount of electricity that can be saved by swapping to 'low-energy' bulbs is, in terms of the amount of energy that the sun heats the atmosphere by each day, entirely negligible. The idea that 'saving' this energy could affect the earth's climate is risible.That is one form of irrationality.

It is rather a symbolic action - but it is a symbolism with a heavy price in terms of environmental pollution and human comfort. (Similarly, cars run on electricity require highly polluting metals in the new batteries.) Since the action is proffered out of concern for the environment, that is another form of irrationality.

If we allow the symbolism that any saving of electricity is good, we surely have to also accept that any new use of electricity must be B.A.D.

Thirdly, in terms of the 'CO2' theory, now formally ditched at Copenhagen, electricity for light bulbs could in any case be from virtuous 'low CO2' sources, such as wind turbines - or more likely nuclear power. Thus the electricity 'wasted' by the bulbs may be said to have nothing at all to do with the CO2 emissions full stop. In France 95% of domestic electricity is thus produced - but of course all the lightbulbs still have to be changed! That is another form of irrationality.

Fourthly, cars run on electricity have to charge their batteries somewhere. Using a grid system, that source will include oil-fired, gas and coal power stations. Electric cars are thus producing the dreaded CO2 again. What's more irrational, is favouring the conversion of a usable energy source, like oil or coal into a different from, electricity in the grid, and then again into electricity in a battery, at all stages 'wasting' energy - in order to appear green and 'virtuous' in terms of energy use.

I'm sure there are more reasons why the policy is irrational, but that's surely enough to be going on with!
—docmartin

Ok: I'll have to be quick, so sorry if this next development is a bit clumsy (I'm starting to feel the work/Christmas pressure now, so I have to hurry on, which might also mean I go quite for a bit—don't know if that is a relief to you or not!! :-))

1) 'A little bit of irrationality is good and that rationality alone never got anyone anywhere'. Quite a classic line—or should I say, quite a Romantic line—developed by a number of philosophers in the late nineteenth century, and I would indicate Schopenhauer and Nietszche in particular (though I think there is a bit of it in Marx and Freud too!). But it would be good to know where, or more pertinently 'how' in that mix we distinguish the 'rational' and the 'irrational', and to what extent either is 'useful'...I mean, in terms of action.

2) Your first point: contains two points, first: the quantity of energy saved compared with the amount of energy produced by the sun that 'heats' the atmosphere. Well, I'm not sure if that comparison is the right one to make. One could argue, rationally, that the comparison should be made across 'traditional' light bulb energy consumption, and 'eco' light bulb energy consumption (I put those terms in 'scare' quotes as neither are necessarily accurate descriptors). Otherwise, we could 'rationally' make the claim in the opposite direction: we should/can/could switch to a new type of light bulb that consumes huge amounts of energy, because in comparison to the energy of the sun the ratio is negligible. That just doesn't seem right (I've put this clumsily, so it's open to being pulled apart by anyone...)

3) The second part of that first point—that this saving (whether calculated as a ratio with the sun, or as a ratio with 'traditional' bulbs) could affect the earth's climate is a risible concept. I'm not sure that is quite right either. It assumes that the specific policy of forcing a switch to a new technology is a) actually anything to do with the 'climate' and b) that the switch is understood as sufficient. I think a lot of the policies you are discussing, and particularly this one, have more to do with economic concerns (releasing consumer capital to spend on products rather than having all that capital going to resource rich nation states like Russia) than ecological concerns. But I would have to prove that and I can't... On the question of 'sufficient/necessary', I haven't come across the position that light bulbs are sufficient by those who believe that AGW is occurring, rather, the switch is seen as necessary in two senses (it is accepted that lighting using electric bulbs is necessary AND it is considered necessary to reduce the energy consumed for that purpose) but not sufficient (it can't help at all on its own). In other words, many who believe AGW is occurring think that it this particular policy is insufficient AND beside the point, so possibly 'unnecessary'—that is, it would be better to simply switch off your lights when you don't need them on (actually, yes, I do know people who leave the lights on during the day when it is perfectly light in their home, and I've seen the same in plenty of work places. That really would save energy).

3) Your second point:again, actually two points. The first is that this policy/action could be understood as a symbolic one. That is quite possible, and as you say, that could be weighed against 'real' costs, and shown to be 'irrational' because, as a symbolic action, it defeats the object of the 'symbol'. Perhaps this is 'irrational', but that would mean that any activity that has a demonstrable 'disconnect' between its symbolic value and its material consequence is 'irrational'. I'm not sure if that is as useful as one might think: there are whole areas of human activity (gifts, high consumption festivals in winter (!), war, birth rites, kinship rites) that appear materially unjustifiable, simply discounting them as 'irrational' excludes a host of activity, without proper examination of their symbolic function. At the same time, I'm not even sure if the claim—that the 'symbolic' is outweighed by the energy consumption in the case of energy saving light bulbs—is justified. I'd have to see some evidence, but if we can accept the claims the light bulb manufacturers make (on all sides) then it would seem hard to imagine traditional light bulbs really do cost less in terms of energy and material consumption (I don't know the 'facts' maybe you do).

4) Your next point within the second point is that if the value of the symbolic action lies in the fact that energy saving is 'good', then we must assume that all new use of electricity is 'bad'. I wouldn't agree that that is necessarily true. One could suggest that all energy saving on current uses is 'good', that all energy increases for those things that we can already do with less energy is 'bad', and that all 'new' forms of energy consumption (new things that allow new activities) are neither 'good' nor 'bad'. In other words, if it costs me so much energy to boil a kettle, it is good if I can find a way to reduce that energy cost, and it is bad if I increase that energy cost, or maintain that energy cost when an alternative is available. But if someone brings in a new technology, a computer that relays my thoughts to the appliances in my home (I'm not good at sci-fi, sorry) that energy cost shouldn't necessarily be calculated in to my 'energy cost for boiling a kettle'. In other words, we might still find 'new' energy costs, that weren't there before. I DON'T think that is the position of most people who believe AGW is happening however. I would suggest that they DO think that all greater energy consumption IS bad, and if it was demonstrably shown that 'eco' light bulbs used up more energy in their lifetime than 'trad.' light bulbs, they would REJECT that action (I, on the other hand, accept 'eco' light bulbs because they make my fuel bill cheaper, and so save me money to spend on other things ;-) Either way, it isn't 'irrational' in your terms (the action isn't inconsistent with the aim).

5) The third point still doesn't hold: because it assumes that there are no energy costs in production and distribution, or that if there are the costs across 'eco' and 'trad' are the same (which I don't think can be true, simply in terms of distribution costs, if an 'eco' bulb lasts as long as 10–20 'trad' bulbs the distribution costs must be higher for the 'trad' bulbs). Now, the French don't run their trucks and cars on nuclear or other, renewable, resources, so they can still reduce carbon emissions through a change to 'eco' bulbs. At the same time, the question of 'all the lightbulbs still have to be changed', which begins to suggest that the French are now in a NEW situation is not quite right. The 'bulbs are changing' all the time ANYWAY, and the stock of 'trad' bulbs is not being 'thrown away', it's being run down. So there is not an introduction of a 'new' energy cost. At the same time, there remains a 'problem' with energy costs in France, just like everywhere else: making energy is not 'cheap' or 'free', and they face serious problems in energy consumption just like everyone else—if you're right that DOMESTIC energy use is 95% nuclear/renewable, it is also true that about 51% of ALL energy consumption is carbon based (coal, gas, and oil). If the French (for whatever reason, and I'd argue that Gasprom is more pressing on the French elite than the environment at the moment) want to reduce dependence on carbon, they need to reduce the DOMESTIC consumption of that nuclear/renewable capacity if they are to shift industrial, agricultural, and transport sectors onto those resources. So the policy, and action, is still not 'irrational' in that context. Excuse me for shifting from the logical enquiry to the use of empirical stats, but it helps clarify that this policy is contending with shifts in use, not necessarily in 'overall' reduction of energy.

6) You make a number of points in your 'fourth' case of 'irrationality' and I'd like to pick out a 'central' one—that changing cars from 'oil' to 'electricity' will cost enormous amounts in terms of energy loss in distribution. Well, to make that case, we would have to demonstrate that all the current distribution (energy) costs that already exist are less than those that would be associated with the loss of energy in conversion and distribution to batteries in cars. At the same time, we would have to be sure that this particular action is guided, not by concerns over loss of carbon resources, nor by concerns over the geo-political control of resources, but solely on CO2 emission. At present, I think you are probably right to suggest that such a forced switch, with present technology, would engage greater CO2 production. But that isn't anyone's policy, and that isn't what is happening: no-one is advocating a 'forced' switch, with an immediate effect. No-one is suggesting that the technology is available to provide vehicles with the same power, capacity, and range as petrol/diesel vehicles at present, and no-one is arguing that the current technology in batteries would reduce CO2. That doesn't mean that there aren't 'greener' cars—that is, cars advertised on the basis that they reduce fuel consumption. But that isn't your point, you didn't include cars that simply use less fuel. So, though you may be right that such an immediate policy would be 'irrational', it is a 'straw man', and can be safely disregarded.

OK, so that covers the 'light bulb/car' 'irrationality'. We could continue like this after Christmas, but I think it would be better if we develop a strategy for getting to the heart of 'irrationality'. The problem as I saw it (see above) was that you were applying the test of 'rationality' across a number of different agents, or 'subjects' (actors with will), so that you kept ending up in a situation where you conflated the 'aims' of one subject with the 'actions' of another, leading you to make claims about 'rationality' that were inapplicable. I understand that for rhetorical purposes you wanted to use 'irrationality', as you feel that this is a pejorative term reserved in the media and perhaps academia for people who share your views. But that doesn't make your use of it sustainable. I think you could shift the debate SIGNIFICANTLY if you focused on the relationship BETWEEN the subjects: and I think that the 'cascade' theory is not very useful in that respect. Why? Because it assumes a great deal about the nature of people and what motivates their actions, such that it really strips out any motivation that isn't directly observable (for example, above, I stated — tongue in cheek — that I buy energy saving light bulbs because they reduce my energy costs, yet that behaviour could be treated in the 'cascade' theory as me being 'duped' by powerful agents who I 'accept' as true, because I am a member of the 'herd' as Almodude would have it!!) Rather, it would be interesting to investigate the political relationship between science, media, individuals, classes, and political states. I think then we would get a much more nuanced interrogation of what is going on. At the same time, you wouldn't need to spend so much time arguing over which 'empirical' evidence is 'correct' or not...As a clue to where I'm coming from on this, I was thinking of a model of research similar to Bruno Latour. Do you know his work?

Hmmm... Nick, I don't feel you have taken my points into consideration - if you have your thinking about them is not being transmitted. I gave four reasons for example, you could deal with them precisely one by one -if you think they can be dealt with as arguments in informal logic.

But look, I'm not sure this is really very productive. I mean, you obviously have views - why not start a page on rationality and then we are 'constructing' a view. Bring in some examples from philosphy, Nietzsceh, Schopenhauer and this Bruno chappie - no I've not come across him. We risk tilting at windmills otherwise - whether 'Cascade Theory' is relevant here - or not, whhether it is 'rational' to introudce new highly wasteful uses of electircity - or not. Did you realise my point was that electric cars 'could be said to' fit that category?!

2009-12-23 00:05:53   Dear Nick Beech,

Please see my response, inserted above in your message. —PerigGouanvic

Dear Martin and Perig,

sorry that my last post was so long ago, and so hasty. First to Perig: I can't see the comment that you've inserted, so sorry about that.

Second to Martin: that's odd, because I went through your points, one by one, and even broke down some of the individual points, according to what I saw as their structure. As I've said before, by giving 'examples' of what you see as irrational, you actually avoid stating what IS irrational, leaving it up to me to figure it out - which I can't. You gave four examples, and I responded to each one in turn - I don't think I dealt with them in 'informal logic', but I think I went some ways to their analysis, and I tried to demonstrate that not only was I taking them seriously, but I was trying to make sense of them. In fact, I'm only applying a teensy little bit of Socratic dialectic to your arguments on why 'AGW' actions are 'irrational', and am finding those arguments wanting.

No, I didn't realise that you were hypothetically stating that a particular kind of electric car, could be considered as using more energy than current models. If you are arguing that it is irrational to promote the policy of electric car production and consumption on the basis that you will reduce CO2 compared with petrol/diesel cars, even if they don't, then you are of course right (assuming that 'irrational' means logically inconsistent). I just pointed out, as I am again, that no-one holds that belief, and you are therefore knocking down a big, fat, straw man. I went to some lengths, above, to show how one could perfectly well believe that electric cars will reduce CO2 emissions, and I based my response on the writings and speech of those who promote that policy. That being said, I personally think it's all beside the point: the promotion of electric cars has nothing really to do with AGW, it is, as far as I can tell, a means to boost car production in a period of capital stagnation. But again, that doesn't make the policy irrational, it makes it invidious and deliberately obfuscating.

I would like to leave the debate as much as you, but I'm not going to accept your last points. I specifically, in the final paragraph of my last post, indicated where I think the problem lies with the depiction you have offered of the AGW debate, that is, your confusion between single and multiple agencies and subjects. You have completely ignored this problem. You persist in declaring the actions of nation states, political parties, and NGOs, as equivalent to, or in some way the same as, the ideas of all those different scientists and thinkers who are interested in the environment on the basis that it is an ecology and that AGW is occurring. In my responses to your original article, and on this forum, I have consistently pointed out the fallacy of doing so. In other words, I have a feeling that the irrationality lies in your own comprehension of the debate. That isn't a slur on you, by the way, but a critical remark on the way in which you have constructed the debate. At the same time, I indicated that you, or even we, could develop the enquiry by investigating the RELATIONSHIP between the science and the politics, and therefore make really solid claims about the distorted nature of the politics and policies that have latched on to 'global warming'. For some reason, when I have made suggestions like this, you have ignored them, and (quite audaciously) imputed that I have been ignoring or misunderstanding your own comments.

As to the productive nature of the debate. You're probably right. You make statements, I respond. You ignore my response and make the same statements, I respond differently. I've probably been a bit rude, given that I haven't set out my stall fully in the first place: I'm an academic, I was cheesed off that the THE had published an article that was really just an opinion piece that didn't get to the heart of any academic problems, and so I pursued the article author. Not fair, not pleasant, and I can only apologise: I really have no beef with you as a writer or thinker. I don't 'believe' in AGW, but I do think that environmental politics needs to be rested from neo-liberal discourse, and brought into a socialist debate about the distribution and management of natural resources. If you want to know my philosophical background, I'm not really an analytical philosopher at all but for all intents and purposes a neo-Marxist. I couldn't really start a page on Nietzsche or Schopenhauer, as I don't know their work well enough. Bruno Latour is a very interesting contemporary thinker (NOT a neo-Marxist, you may be relieved to hear!) that I think you, and those who are interested in the issues you raise, would find fascinating. He is a philosopher of science and helped establish a concept called 'Actor-Network Theory'. One of his books 'We Have Never Been Modern' is, I think, right up your street, as he cogently and excitingly argues for the 'reassembling' of the social with the material (that is, the political with the scientific). I think you would get a lot out of his work, see: [WWW]http://www.bruno-latour.fr/ a lot of which is in French but there is a lot of English on there too (if you don't read French).

I hope you had a good Christmas and have been revelling in the freezing weather.

— Nick Beech

Hi Nick, yes, revelling but also freeezing and getting ill!

Please see the new pages here:

[WWW]http://www.philosophical-investigations.org/Irrationality_and_the_Global_Warming_Debate/

and here:

[WWW]http://www.philosophical-investigations.org/Irrationality_and_the_Global_Warming_Debate/Talk?action=show
—Docmartin

2010-01-07 19:09:19   As Martin suggested above, if you'd like to start a page on Bruno Latour, I encourage you to do so.

My native tongue is French, and I'm a translator, so I may as well help with untranslated work by Latour.

2010-01-21 06:27:29   A friend suggested that wqe take a look at this message, that you can find in the discussion thread of "Beyond debate?" by our colleague, Doc Martin. I leave it here because it would be a pity to forget this. I admit that I find a little bit difficult to understand! # Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen 4 January, 2010

As the editor of 'Energy&Environment' and co-author of 'International Environmental Agreements: The Failure of the Kyoto Process, 2002 with A. Kellow),and former Senior Research Fellow at SPRU, University of Sussex,I argue that we need cheap energy for poverty reduction and development. I liked the original article and much of the subsequent debate, except when it degenerated into a discussion of anti-semitism. Science has often been used and misused by the 'powerful' as well as the weak in order to persuade, gain legitimacy or slander opponents.In a world of many gods, the UN's appeal to science as utlimate source of authority should not surprise, but has failed. This is good for science, for 'the warmers' have grievously misused climatology, but a real problem remains for governments with so many agendas tied to the warming threat. As a contribution to the debate I would like to point out two facts that seem to have been overlooked, but have long formed part of my 'sceptical' or rather agnostic position, a position based on a over a decade of research into the IPCC and climate change politics: the IPCC was set up as an intergovernmental body by a small number of imported energy-dependent states when the era of high oil prices came to an end, in 1986-87. Many energy and R&D, not to mention environmentalist,interests and agendas saw this as a threat and called for regulations that would protect noncarbon based fuels and technologies. Hence the activities of the much ignored working group three of the IPCC. It, not the science group, provided the 'solutions' to a problems that had to be dangerous global warming warming. Only be respnding to dangrous warming could the high cost of carbon energy be maintained in order to support its competitors. Seconldy, the 1992 Framework Comnvention on Climate Change, did not ask the IPCC to study the evidence for climate change and its possible causes (as it should have) but required it to support a convention that assumed, and enshrined in international law, that global warming was approaching as emissions kept on rising, that it was caused by these emissions and that it was dangerous. Large areas of scientific study were therefore excluded or downgraded, many scientists in fact persecuted. What remained of climate science and its supporting disciplines, all was then funded (not by the IPCC but its member governments), selected and interpreted by officials from environment agencies, research organisations and UN bureaucrats, to 'underpin' this claim of dangrous man-made warming. This claim has not been disproven, in part because science has been selectively used to support it. The rest is history.... or is it? The interests and agendas calling for a higher price for carbon fuels by regulation and taxation, continue though the world recsssion may reduce their strength. How will they fare without the climate threat? Watch the price of 'traded carbon' and the new debates about energy security and ocean acidification, and population. The Malthusian ideoplogy is by no means dead. —PerigGouanvic

Global warming references

A request by GBoisclair; more soon. —PerigGouanvic

2010-01-24 23:58:47   Good to see there's still a few 'believers' left...

(From the Times Higher site just)

# Andrew Peel 24 January, 2010

"Here's some fresh fact: [WWW]http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/ To the cold facts of the greenhouse effect and anthropogenic increases in carbon dioxide concentrations, you can add another, freshly reaffirmed: the world is getting hotter. I won't be surprised if the sceptics here choose to believe this is a fabrication by Nasa researchers unable to break from the consensus. It seems to me that some people just *won't* apply their reason. I would like to know what motivates you sceptics. I will tell you what motivates me: I see our great civilisation throwing a toolboxful of spanners in the works of our life support system. It's obvious some harm will come, quite possibly catastrophic harm. It could easily take geological time to get back to where we are today. And the cost of insuring against this existential risk? 1% of GDP annually for the next 50 years. To me this seems like a no-brainer. I guess you think it is too expensive?"

The thing that stikes me is that this language of "the world is getting hotter" is itself quite irrational. You could say arguably the land masses overall are getting hotter or something like that, even if, in fact, the CO2 effect applies to the oceans.. and even if the 'hotter' really means the nightime minimums are higher... but this appeal to the 'whole world'?

Looking at the link offered, I see the source (which is a handful of mathematicians who are deeply into the original version (hockey stick and all) 'truth' of the CO2 theory, bases the finding on changes in the Artic and Antartic - which it also offers are so unreliable that other Climate watchers don't even count the figures intoo global date sets. As they say:

"The Met Office Hadley Centre, based in the United Kingdom, uses similar input measurements as GISS, for example, but it omits large areas of the Arctic and Antarctic, where monitoring stations are sparse. In contrast, the GISS analysis extrapolates data in those regions using information from the nearest available monitoring stations, and thus has more complete coverage of the polar areas."

That's the mathematical way to do it!
—docmartin

2010-02-02 11:28:40   The most interesting thing about this story is that yesterday, the writer, Fred Pearce. who is a global warming supporter (written a book leading the campaign etc.) and I begin to think a bit stoopid too, wrote a story firmly stating that there was no evidency of any improper behaviour by the Head of that British University Climate Unit...

[WWW]http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese —docmartin

Errors piling up

2010-02-14 00:31:09   Should we try to keep up with all the GROSS errors that are being spotted in the IPCC reports these days? Or is it futile?

We've got the glaciers date of disapperance 2035, sorry 2350 sorry maybe never...

We've got the size of the present ice field - ten times bigger than it really is, making its shrinkage all the more remarkable. Indeed it could shrink to what it really is and that would be a massive 90% reduction we could credit to the theory!

We've got the amount of Holland under sea-level ABOUT TO DROWN! (IPCC Sshoved the figures up from the real 25% to 50% or so...)

The shortfall in crops in subsaharan Africa - in the next decade everyone's gonna starve!

... I kinda forgot already the rest.

They should have stuck to those 'maybe' statements.. never can be wrong if you get the balance right. —86.220.87.209

Here's another great one!

"In its 2007 report, the IPCC wrote that "up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state."

- claims based on a report from the World Wildlife Fund (misreporting threats to the Amazon from all sources, including logging and fires.) - DM

2010-03-08 02:21:06  

Why is the government so desperate to only show one point of view on this matter and why are global warming sceptics silenced?

Here is the answer provided by Climate Realists:

I'd really like to gather further evidence for (or against) point 2. especially.
— PG —PerigGouanvic

2010-07-13 06:29:30   I'd add something along those lines:

Hijacked by climate change?
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
[WWW]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8223611.stm

Which is in line with what we can read in "Beyond debate?"...

—PerigGouanvic

This is a Wiki Spot wiki. Wiki Spot is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that helps communities collaborate via wikis.