Final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'

(Scooby voice) Ruh - Roh !

"Hottest October on record"

Seems as though (yet again) another headline is based on flawed data.

"The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running."


The world has never seen such freezing heat - Telegraph

A group of scientists have asked the American Physical Society to rescind its statement on GW.

This is looking worse and worse for the GW crowd.

You do realize that you're quoting from an op-ed essay that is over a year old, right? And that the correct data was released way back last year?

And you know what the correct data indicate? That last year's October was not the warmest on record, true. It was the second warmest on record. And 2008 was the ninth warmest year on record--with all nine of the warmer ones occurring after the mid 1990's. (2009 is shaping up to be the fifth warmest year, with 2000-2009 easily the warmest decade) (and in fact, of course, individual months or even years are really not very relevant).

You can keep throwing little bits of nonsense, but the facts, the data, are unquestionable.

Yes, it's clear. It's a very sad state of affairs. People who really should know better have just decided to "not believe" the facts. "I don't like it, I don't believe it, you can't persuade me otherwise, I know what I know and the evidence doesn't matter. Scientists are just bogus. They're all liars."

Yes, I can blame the politicization, and yes, I do blame the deniers as well as the scientists for not doing a better job of communicating.

But facts are facts. And the facts, the science, which demonstrate anthropogenic global warming are as solid and well-documented as the facts which support evolution, gravity, germ theory, etc., etc.

Some science (evolution, climate change) gets this "I refuse to believe it" attitude--always because of politics or religion, not because of any flaw in the science itself.

If only Carl Sagan were still alive. On the other hand, it's better that he isn't. This would distress him thoroughly. "I won't believe it because I don't want to believe it." The demon-haunted world, indeed. Science, the best candle we have in the darkness, is flickering low. Nearly extinguished by the powerful winds of ignorance, obstinance, and prejudice. And it's a terrible thing to see.

I admire your patience and persistence.

[Engage sarcasm mode]

You simply don't understand though that there is good science and bad science. Good science is what comes from any scientist that says there is GW. Bad science is what comes from any scientist who disputes GW as preached regardless of the the credentials of the scientist or of the strength of the evidence they offer. (Not to mention the numbers of said scientists.) Naturally, if you are not a scientist or you dispute GW it is because you are too stupid to understand the difference between good science and bad science.

[Disengage sarcasm mode]

On the "side" of anthropogenic climate change, we have facts and truth and science. Attacked, unfairly and dishonestly, because of politics. I'm not talking about Al Gore (and anyone who does, obviously doesn't understand the issue in the slightest). I'm talking about the overwhelming, solid, fact-supported, scientific consensus. This is happening, it's caused by humans, and there is no serious or reputable scientific disagreement with that fact. There is plenty of room for debate and plenty of politics about what to do about it. But the fact that it's happening is not in any doubt by anyone who is knowledgeable or informed about the issue.

If one doesn't understand (I won't say "agree with" or "believe," because facts don't need agreement or belief) that premise, he is really not even on an equal intellectual footing with people who have a right to discuss this--he is just bloviating.

It's exactly the same. And you're probably right with some of your points--it's not worth arguing with people who don't care about facts and don't trust science. You're not going to convince them because their belief is not susceptible to evidence or rational argument. Just like creationists, just like moon-landing-conspiracy believers, etc. etc. It might be best to just ignore them.

But the problem is that the know-nothings, the ones who reject fact and evidence, have an easier time arguing, and (more often than not) know that they can go ahead and make unfair arguments and appeals to ignorance and be more successful with those. "Common sense" is a very powerful argument, even (especially) when it's utter nonsense.

This is a big truth. And a big problem.

It is a fact, as much as evolution--and you may be right that that doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter because most people decide based on ignorance, based on bias and opinion and uninformed ideas about what they would like to be true.

And it's even worse that it doesn't matter because most people feel hostile, angry, when they are told that they don't know as much as people who actually have studied and worked and thought to achieve a degree of expertise, and who actually have a higher degree of native talent and intelligence and ability.

Everyone is not above average. The average person's opinion is not as good as the experts'.

It takes a great deal of intellectual maturity and security to understand and to recognize that there are people who are smarter than you are, who understand things that you don't, and to be able to evaluate and accept the authority of people who have earned and acquired that by ability and work and commitment.

The average person doesn't think that an auto mechanic is arrogant or unfeeling just because he knows more about fixing cars. The average person doesn't think that his opinion about how to build a bridge is "just as good as" the opinion of an engineer.

Yet "academics" and "scientists" are considered susceptible to the judgment and contradiction of people who don't have anything like the ability, experience, or knowledge it takes to come to the conclusions they have.

I do agree that it's tough to reach people if you make them feel dumb, like you are talking down to them or like their opinions don't matter. But false humility, "dumbing-down," won't work either.

And your analysis is omitting one crucial point. The people who are attacking the facts of climate change are intentionally, dishonestly, taking advantage of ignorance. They are pandering to an anti-intellectual trend, which is ultimately the most harmful and dangerous attitude in our society.

Yes, the burden is high on the scientists, and no, they haven't always managed to rise to that burden. But the other side deserves to be contradicted, called out, ridiculed, treated with contempt. They are not only wrong, they are intentionally wrong--and intentionally working to keep people in ignorance and in danger--for political and economic reasons.

Is this the fix?

No.

Nor this.

Leon, Joe's post did more to prove the points that you were making than any reason can possibly do.

Nonsense. Gore is not a scientist (and the Oscar is not a scientific award), he has absolutely nothing to do with the science or the data. Not a bit. Yes, he made a movie (which put me to sleep, to be honest). Yes, he's done a lot in terms of popularizing and polemicizing. But that's not connected to the science or the facts. He has no involvement in any part of that. It's a red herring.

I said there's plenty of room for debate about what to do about the problem. And I've never said anything to contradict that. That's an important discussion, and needs to be carried out with honesty and real information.

If you don't understand that the problem is real and that it's human-caused, then you don't have any role in the discussion about what to do about the problem. I guess I didn't make that clear. The debate is perfectly valid (and completely essential) about solutions.

There is no legitimate or rational debate about whether the problem is real and whether it's caused by human activity. Those questions are fully answered, with facts and data, fully-examined and openly questioned and thoroughly demonstrated.

If you don't understand that we are experiencing anthropogenic global climate change (or if you understand it but dishonestly deny it, which is often the case), then you don't have a place in the essential debate about what to do about it. And doing nothing about it (or thinking that nothing can be done) is an argument that can be made. But nobody who tries to claim that the problem is non-existent or not anthropogenic has a leg to stand on to make any argument at all.

Seems to me you're contradicting yourself. Who said "facts don't mean squat, Joe"? You did. I think the facts are all that matter--but unfortunately, for the average person, it's all about perception and sound-bite and biases, not about facts at all.

I know that as well as you do--but I also know that, just as in this case, most people don't even take the time to think through what they're being asked or to look at the evidence and facts. Just as in this case, they hear convenient, ignorant, dishonest sound-bites like "no transitional fossils" or "water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas," and they just stop right there. That's sad, and it's common.

Yes, there is such a thing. I was making a historical reference, because I think there's a very direct analogy between the bigotry and nativism of the know-nothing party and the bigotry and false populism of the climate-change-deniers. Perhaps the analogy was a bit strained--and I guess it was too obscure. But it's not just a made-up term, and the history of this kind of attitude in American (and other) cultures is worth remembering.

I love "pomp-dumpster." Great phrase!

Maybe you're forgetting. I've actually worked as a teacher in inner-city schools. You can't approach students as if they're dumb. It doesn't work. But you also can't let them think that uninformed opinions are just as valuable as informed, educated opinions.

I thought I was the liberal humanist?

On good days, I probably agree with you. But there are times when I think (like I believe you've said) that most humans are selfish, narrow-minded, want only to follow the easiest path, and will only think independently if they're very carefully coaxed and led and helped to do so.

Yes, but Joe, you didn't discuss the crucial issue of intent. The organization used the wrong data from the wrong months. That sound very suspicious to me, and it goes to their credibility. What do you say about that?


OT - as for Sagan and his so-called Demon Haunted World, I'd like to start a debate on that with you and Leon, because I've been wanting to take a swing at him. Up to it, bud?

It turned October 2008 from the second warmest on record to the warmest on record. Not terribly suspicious, especially because the mistake (and that's clearly what it was, no intent) was immediately found and fixed.

What about the scientists asking the American Physical Society to rescind it statement? That shows even scientists are concerned about the validity of GW, doesn't it?

BTW, even if the scientists are right and the ignorant public doesn't understand that calculations, the scientists are still required to make public the raw data, assuming those scientists receive public funding. This is the essence of democracy, and ignorance is no reason to be denied access to information. IOW, I could believe in the flat earth society, but that's no reason for geologists to deny me data on oil drilling or whatever. Or to mislead me with incorrect information.

You wanna discuss the Sagan and his ideology?

No, not really. You're talking about five people. Just five. Four of them physicists, not climate scientists. And the fifth?

Take a look:

Let's make sure that when we say "scientists are asking," we be really clear about who it is doing the asking, eh?

No, Swampy, not in this thread. I know how you get about skeptics and the paranormal and conspiracy theories.