Further evidence of the power of Junk Science over science can be found at top ten foulups of 2004 as posted in Junk Science

Posted by GM Roper at August 23, 2005 02:32 PM

We do know that temperatures have been rising since the end of the last ice age. It cannot all be attributed to human activity. We only have about what - 200 years of data? That's a blink of an eye. We don't know how hot it will get before another ice age either. We do know that it happens in cycles and the earth has been hotter in the past than it is now.

It's my understanding that urban areas are in fact warming, but areas away from human activity are either not warming or are doing it at a considerably lower pace. I think if some people will look (I did this research at one time, but have since lost the data), tempuratures have risen right after periods of much volcanic activity and then returned back to normal or at least leveled off.

Have you read Crichton's "Sate of Fear"? Even though it is a fictional story there is much factual data in the book.

Also, a good source for information is econot.com. (But you already knew that.) I thought your readers might be interested as well.

Posted by Oyster at August 23, 2005 02:56 PM

Thanks, Oyster. I had not checked out that site before.

In doing my quick research for the post, I found a lot of instances of phony research and dummied statistics to support global warming claims. However, I left those out because that just goes under fraud.

I wanted to focus on what we can prove. If humans are accused of causing global warming, then there should be verifiable ways to prove that and ways that others can duplicate those tests and get the same results. If those claims cannot be proved, then the people demanding money for studies and solutions need to be quiet and quit wasting time, money, and resources on something that is conjecture.

The proof will be evidenced when real, honest scientists all agree that the test results show what they show--or what they don't. Until then, no Kyoto Treaty or major transfers of money for pure speculation. I'm not against spending money for problems. I'm simply against wasting money on unfounded hysteria.

Posted by Woody at August 23, 2005 03:17 PM

I might also mention, if I may, that many of those who are now stating a case for global warming were stating a case for a new Ice Age some 20 years ago. Can the new Ice Age have been reversed in only 10-15 years so that now warming is the problem.

Industry and human action does infact impact the environment, but not to the extent the global warming folk would have you believe.

Posted by GM Roper at August 23, 2005 04:55 PM

G.M., that just proves a point that claims don't match science, especially when you have a historical record of predictions versus actual events. It's for such reason that undisputable PROOF is required before we invest large sums. Nothing is going to change so fast that we can't take the time to do it right.

Posted by Woody at August 23, 2005 05:43 PM

I had a professor in college - a physics professor - who was fond of saying "we don't argue about facts, we look them up".

I don't understand the objection to figuring this stuff out - logically and scientifically. We have observed that temperatures have risen. We have reason to believe that this trend will continue. Shouldn't we establish why before we engage in a solution?

In the movie "King of Hearts" there is a scene in which the commander of some troops is sending two scouts out to figure out what is happening in a town. He calls forward two young, enthusiastic soldiers. He begins to give them their orders "You are to go..." but before he finishes they shout "YES SIR!" and run away at full speed. The commander screams "HALT!" and then calls them back. With them standing back in front of him the commander asks "Where are you going?" to which they reply "WE DON"T KNOW, SIR!".

Reminds me of all these "concerned citizens and scientists" who want to fix a problem the cause of which they don't know or understand.

Posted by too many steves at August 24, 2005 06:01 AM

TMS: "I had a professor in college - a physics professor - who was fond of saying 'we don't argue about facts, we look them up'."

TMS, I really like that quote and plan on using it again. You had a level-headed physics professor in college.

I 've read some books by and about Dick Feynman, who helped with the Mahattan Project and taught physics in universities. He also helped solve the question about the Challenger explosion by taking material from an o-ring seal, freezing it in ice water, and then shattering the hardened material on the table--pretty straightforward and an accurate test.

If liberals had been in charge of that problem they would have spent the first year researching how the debris might have affected the ecology and harmed birds and sea life. Then, they would have demanded that the U.S. stop launches and start using French rockets. Then, ten years later (approximately the time span the U.N. allowed Hussein), they would have spent billions and forgot what they were supposed to be studying in the first place.

That's like the global warming issue. There was a giant leap from suspecting that global warming was occuring to blaming, not mankind, but the U.S. with primary responsibility--with inadequate proof. I guess that we're supposed to control volcanos and El Nino, too.

Just like your professor, I say let's get the facts. Why is that such a hard concept for some?

Posted by Woody at August 24, 2005 09:50 AM

Suppose that someone) should solve the problem of Global warming, and reverse the process. Then we have global cooling. That would be horrible, given the state of our fossel fuels, and the general fear of Nuclear fuels. So now you see the best thing is to wait for global warming to take the earth back to a eocene like setting, when the huge jungle growth will over a few million years, replenish the hydrocarbon supplies.

Posted by James Melbert at August 24, 2005 03:39 PM

The U.S. was accused of being responsible for global cooling in the 1960s and now global warming in this century. Liberals are like a bunch of women in an office...they can't agree if they want the temperature colder or warmer. So, even if we could control the direction of the climate, they still would never be happy.

I appreciate your idea of how to replenish the hydrocarbon resources, but I think we need a solution that is just a little more short-term. However, one good part about that idea is that a few million years from now the left would probably have stopped saying that Bush is to blame.

We could possilbly offset current warming trends by blasting some holes in volcanos causing them to erupt and spread a dust layer around the Earth to block the sun. On the other hand, we could just elect some Democrat to the presidency since the Democrats claim to have all the answers.

Posted by Woody at August 24, 2005 07:16 PM

"Liberals are like a bunch of women in an office...they can't agree if they want the temperature colder or warmer."

Feel free to back that statement up, Woody. Until then, it's only posturing on your part.

Nobody is debating that the earth goes through regular heating/cooling cycles. And there is really no argument of merit in scientific circles that man made emissions effect the greenhouse gases that make up our atmosphere, positively affecting the amount of heat retained in our atmosphere.

No argument further study has to be done. But is sitting on our hands waiting for the definitive evidence to roll in really the best solution?

Seriously, if you guys had it your way, we'd still be studying whether implementation of the clean air act of the 1970's was cost efeective. I, for one, no for a fact that our air is much more breathable now than it was then.

So, before you go tossing around terms like `junk science', consider that anti-global warming `science' is being funded entirely by industry groups that are directly affected by the findings of the real science out there. It's all about dollars and cents to those guys, yet you are so willing to buy into it, at the risk of what kind of environmnent we bequeath our children. I simply can't understand why that means so little to you.

Posted by jim hitchcock at August 24, 2005 11:21 PM

Jim, I'm not buying into anything without proof--whether it is by industry with a bias or environmental wackos or leftist scientists with a bias. I accept that man-made emissions affect Earth's temperatures, but the real matter is to what extent and, next, how much money should be spent to fix it? I suspect that claims by "save the Earth" people are greatly exaggerated and that their exaggerated claims are not based on science but politics.

To take your example, air is cleaner now than in 1970. Again, however, you have to look at a cost/benefit ratio. Here's an example: At one time, my county was never included in the car inspections for air quality. There was good reason, because most people who live in our county work nearby and don't drive into the central city. Then, a bunch of bureucrats tripled the area around Atlanta costing people in these areas time and money out of their lives for inspections. But, we only had to have our cars checked for emissions every two years, but they changed it to once a year without any claimed reason except that people can remember to do it every year easier than every two years. Bull. Then, I had a car fail by something weird like 4 parts of something per million--per million! I had to spend around $350 and have my car retested just to keep people from breathing 4 parts per million less for the little that we used that car--a car that is driven little and never goes into the city. It's like money down a rat hole. Also, even with strict standards, 98% of the cars in my county pass. It is clear that the costs to the economy for the little that is found clearly has a bad cost/benefit ratio. Oh, yes, this doesn't even begin to consider the cost of pollution control devices and maintenace on cars, even for people in extremely rural areas, and the fact that we have to have, not only unleaded gas but, now a special blend in our area driving the price up about another two cents per gallon and using up refinery capacity. The clean air movement also assumed that causes of pollution are the same everywhere, but they're not. Yet, government has a one-size fits all mentality. Another cost of the "clean air" is that business is ham-strung by it. A plant cannot make a modification to its facilities unless it shows a decrease in pollution, which often is not practical or warranted. So, improvements in productive capacity are limited over ineffective and meaningless rules. This is one reason why we're stuck with the same oil refineries from 30 years ago.

Another example of the left overreacting without good science or cost/benefit analysis is over DDT. I bought into "Silent Spring" at the time, but I didn't know that millions would starve because of the ban on the most effective chemical to help people in Africa protect their crops. The U.N. enforces that today. They might be killing more people than Hitler and Stalin with that ban.

But, clean air and DDT are entirely different arguments for another time.

Based on my lifetime of experiences, the left has a poor track record of being right on most things. There's a reason that liberals are called "knee-jerk." They demand and act before thinking. All, I say is let's get the facts before we waste a lot of money. With facts, we can make better decisions as to whether available dollars can go to health care or go to bringing down the temperature of the Earth by one-thousandth of a degree, which might be the best we could expect.

Lastly, my studies on women in an office come from over thirty years of observation and talking with friends who have similar observations. They adjust the thermostat all day. Some put space heaters under their desks even when everyone else feels fine or want it even colder. Use a sweater if you're cold! For those who are too hot, I wonder if we wouldn't make some progress on global warming if we could find a cure for hot flashes. At least my life would be better. That proof is better than the proof that most people on the left accept for global warming. I bet that 90% of people who work in offices with women agree with me--including possibly even the women. Oh yes, I also finally took out the radio because they fought over the radio station all day. One wants country and another one wants classical. Anyway, everyone knows that talk radio is better than those. (Sometimes, I wonder if they fight just to fight.) I'm sure that my rantings is proof enough for you.

Posted by Woody at August 25, 2005 02:35 AM

Couple of things:

You label scientists studying and warning about global warming as `leftist'. That's seems kind of irrational to me. Kind of like saying `they hate oil companies and want to bring them down. Pure science knows no politics...that doesn't mean data won't be used to back up certain ideologies, but there really is no argument among responsible scientists that man made emissions converted into greenhouse gases have added hugely to the 1 1/2 degrees of mean temperature rise over the last 50 years.

Agree with you about women and sweaters. But it's not personal comfort we're talking about here, we're talking about how it affects global weather patterns.

This is a pretty interesting map (and site) to scroll around in: http://www.climatehotmap.org/

Woody, I hope to hell your not arguing the cost effectiveness of unleaded gas in our cars. You do realize the toxic effect lead has on all of us, but particulary in our kids, don't you?

Posted by jim hitchcock at August 25, 2005 05:47 AM

Oh, and by the way, toxins are measured in PPM to accurately effect the levels at which they become toxic to the human organism. You don't need milligram levels of, say, dioxin, lead, DDT, or plutonium to reach those benchmarks.

Posted by jim hitchcock at August 25, 2005 05:53 AM

Jim, I didn't say that all scientists that study global warming are leftists. My comment reflected just on that group of scientists who are--still leaving plenty of room of real researchers. Politics driven people who call themselves scientists are not pure scientists, as reflected by some of the information and links in the entry.

There are disputes among responsible scientists about whether or not global warming is a trend or just a cycle, and a lot of data has been phonied up. In my research, I found numerous cases of people tweaking their data and making up numbers to support their point, when the real, uncontaminated data supported the other side.

As you have read, my entire point isn't to draw a conclusion about man's effect on global warming as much as to call for and demand proof before we spend money that does little, if anything, to solve the problem.

Forget the women in the office analogy. The only point that I made was that liberals over the years, like them, say it's cold and then it's hot and drive people crazy complaining.

I just went to your link about global warming. I'm suspicious of any conclusions based on observations of changes in the climate. For instance, glacier melting has been occuring since the ice age, thank goodness, because without the melting Chicago would be under a mile of ice. Observations only give information to form a hypothesis--not to draw conclusions and state that these observations represent proof.

[As a side note about something in your link, I'm very concerned about the information provided to 15,000 schools by the Union of Concerned (Liberal) Scientists, which is referenced in my entry. Their materials and suggested research methods have a lot of holes in them and constitute propaganda and not accepted study material. If they care about "the children," then they need not try to brainwash them. This almost falls under the category that people should accept that the Earth is flat and is center of the universe because some in positions of authority say so--even without proof.]

Next, lead was not removed from gasoline to keep it out of the atmosphere and "save the children." It was removed only because leaded gas ruined catalytic converters, whose purpose was controlling other pollutants and whose cost is $200-$300 each.

Jim, if you look at the total cost for emission controls in higher automobile costs for pollution control devices, higher costs for highly refined gasoline, higher costs for inspections and repairs for compliance, higher costs for government regulations, higher costs in lost man-hours to get cars inspected, etc.--well, it's staggering. Yet, the government keeps tightening the requirements without cost justifications. I am pretty upset at taking a day of my time and spending $350 and the inspection fees over 4 PPM of, I think, sulpha dioxide. It was a very, very poor allocation of resources.

Now, I don't even know why I've gone so much into the automobile pollution issue. I'm for controlling auto emissions. It's just that there is a point at which more control isn't worth it.

One last thing example. I did an inventory of grain on barges coming into a flour mill. The quality control lab was showing me how many parts per million of rat droppings and dead bugs were in the grain and allowed by the government. I was surprised that they allowed any, but these guys said that if we tried to eliminate eveything that we couldn't afford the food at all--and, we're not going to die from the little that is in the food. Maybe we should apply those same standards to all environmental choices--whether cars, drilling for oil, or global warming.

I gotta go. You can have the last word unless it is really out there and demands a response.

I really appreciate your input. I think we both want the same things, but we might have a difference as to how to get there and how much to spend.

Posted by Woody at August 25, 2005 08:35 AM

The earth isn't flat? Prove it!

Next thing you're going to tell me is that the `Beyond this point, there be dragons' on maps is part of a government coverup...

Posted by jim hitchcock at August 25, 2005 11:35 AM

Jim, you remind me of the story (apocriphal probably) of the elderly British lady who attended a lecture by the Great Carl Sagan. She stood up and asked Dr. Sagan why he wouldn't acknowledge that the world was really flat and rested on the backs of four giant elephants. Dr. Sagan kindly asked the lady what the elephants stood on and she said "An even larger Turtle."

Sagan than asked what the turtle stood on and she said an even bigger turtle and when he asked what that turtle stood on, she reportedly said "You can't fool me young man, its turtles all the way down." So, I'll accept your comment that the world may be flat if you'll accept the old lady's belief that its turtles all the way down!

Cheers

Posted by GM Roper at August 25, 2005 02:49 PM

I looked up the American Geophysical Union website and found their position paper Human Impacts on Climate. Selected quotes follow: [my emphasis in bold]

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

...Scientists' understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for global climate change has greatly improved during the last decade.... Yet, model projections of future global warming vary, because of differing estimates of population growth, economic activity, greenhouse gas emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate concentrations and their effects, and also because of uncertainties in climate models.

...AGU believes that no single threshold level of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere exists at which the beginning of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system can be defined. Some impacts have already occurred, and for increasing concentrations there will be increasing impacts. The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern.

...AGU encourages scientists worldwide to participate in climate research, education, scientific assessments, and policy discussions. AGU also urges that the scientific basis for policy discussions and decision-making be based upon objective assessment of peer-reviewed research results.

...The global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change. Scientific research is required to improve our ability to predict climate change and its impacts on countries and regions around the globe. Scientific research provides a basis for mitigating the harmful effects of global climate change through decreased human influences (e.g., slowing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land management practices), technological advancement (e.g., removing carbon from the atmosphere), and finding ways for communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme events.

This seems to be a well balanced statement from one leading organization of physical scientists, at least.

However, since future climate is an experiment of nature that can not be replicated in the laboratory in its entirety (leading to the necessity of mathematical modeling), the science is still going to at best yield us probabilities of future events, probabilities that will become more exact as time goes on. The challenge will then be to weigh the probablities with the risks and benefits of action vs inaction, which will to some degree reflect political decisions.

Or to put it another way, science can give the probabilites, costs, and benefits, but the political process will decide the level of certainly required before acting and the steps that will be taken at that time. That in turn means that we are going to have to sort through the biases generated by competing ideological and economic interests. And even so, we will all (or more likely our children or grandchildren) be surprised at what happens in the real world, I would wager.

Indeed, one line of research suggests that at some point, a global warming could trigger an irreversible change in climate regime that could ironically repidly produce a new ice age. Perhaps, if science could find a way to store all the hot air generated by this topic, we could forestall the next ice age for a few hundred years!

Posted by civil truth at August 25, 2005 03:43 PM

Good comment and reference, Civil. The article is correct that there cannot be absolute proof replicating global warming causes in a laboratory. However, we can collect data and honestly report it to begin the modeling process.

Or, we can just accept what some others say and blame global warming on cow flatulence.

Posted by Woody at August 25, 2005 09:27 PM