George Will and the 1970s-Style Global Cooling 'Scare'

[RTFirefly]

George Will has an obsession with the global-cooling 'scare' of the 1970s. He's written about it in columns today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021302514.html?hpid=opinionsbox1), last year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/21/AR2008052102428.html), in 2006 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/31/AR2006033101707.html), in 2004 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20998-2004Dec22.html), 1997 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7454/Will71.html), and whaddaya know, all the way back in 1992 (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/74026490.html?dids=74026490:74026490&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&fmac=&date=May+31%2C+1992&author=George+F.+Will&desc=Chicken+Littles%3B+The+persistence+of+eco-pessimism.).

Shorter George Will, across the decades, right up through today: all the scientists were worried about global cooling and an impending ice age back in the early to mid 1970s, and they were wrong, so there's no reason to take them seriously about global warming today.

(Yep, George Will is a global warming denier. One more reason not to take him seriously.)

The question for debate here is: was there a scientific consensus at the time that we had to brace ourselves for an impending and seriously consequential cooling of the planet? Or is George F. Will bullshitting us?

Here's Will, from today's column:
In the 1970s, "a major cooling of the planet" was "widely considered inevitable" because it was "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950" (New York Times, May 21, 1975). Although some disputed that the "cooling trend" could result in "a return to another ice age" (the Times, Sept. 14, 1975), others anticipated "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" involving "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation" (Science News, March 1, 1975, and Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976, respectively). The "continued rapid cooling of the Earth" (Global Ecology, 1971) meant that "a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery" (International Wildlife, July 1975). "The world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age" (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of "ominous signs" that "the Earth's climate seems to be cooling down," meteorologists were "almost unanimous" that "the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century," perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, "The Cooling World," April 28, 1975). Armadillos were fleeing south from Nebraska, heat-seeking snails were retreating from Central European forests, the North Atlantic was "cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool," glaciers had "begun to advance" and "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974). Lessee, who do we have here? One refereed journal (Science), a lot of mainstream press (the New York Times twice, the Christian Science Monitor, Newsweek), a magazine of an environmental advocacy group (International Wildlife), a couple of generally pretty good popularizers of scientific news (Science News, Science Digest), and one that I can't find in order to categorize (Global Ecology).

I remember some of those articles from when they were originally published, and what I recall was more of "this is an interesting but speculative possibility" rather than "we'd better start stockpiling food and fuel." I don't recall any sense of alarm about it, any sense that anyone was really trying to wake up the public to get ready to do something. And Lord knows there was plenty of that at the time, about a host of issues.

Let's take a look at that "others anticipated "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" involving "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation" (Science News, March 1, 1975, and Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976, respectively)" part, because if there's any meat hidden in that pile of cotton-candy cites, that's where it is.

Per RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94), here's the full context of that quote from Science magazine, the one peer-reviewed source in the pile:
Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth's orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar's (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate (80). Underlining mine, to make it easier to find the excerpt Will uses.

And doesn't that just crumble in your hand? Based on orbital variation alone, we could have a trend, over the next 20,000 years, towards the extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation that Will says they were warning us about - BUT that applied "only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels."

Whatever the scientific consensus was at the time, George Will is certainly bullshitting us about whether his cites imply the consensus he claims.

[GIGObuster]

IIRC jshore and others pointed out before that indeed there was no consensus then for global cooling coming soon.

IIRC you are also an statistician, so please hang around when the expected deniers that claim to be great statisticians show up.

[jshore]

I don't have much more to add to the OP's very good deconstruction of the "global cooling" myth except to point out that there is also a more recent RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/langswitch_lang/in) article discussing a paper that Connelley and co-author have now published documenting that even during the 1970s the peer reviewed literature had many more articles on global warming than cooling...So, not only was there no consensus on global cooling, it wasn't even close to being a majority opinion in the peer-reviewed literature!

It is also worth emphasizing the 1975 NAS/NRC report mentioned in the OP's Real Climate cite. This shows that, far from the scientific community as a whole going off the handle in any direction, they were in fact very cautious to say that, while they had some understanding of the various influences on climate, we could not yet predict the future course of the climate. One can compare this to the current view (http://www.leopoldina-halle.de/cms/fileadmin/user_upload/G8_Statement_Climate.pdf) of the National Academy, along with the analogous bodies in the other G8+5 nations.

[jshore]

Just to add, perhaps the one useful lesson here from George Will et al is that one is right to be cautious about getting one's scientific conclusions from the mainstream press. Much better to turn directly to reputable scientific sources like the IPCC or National Academy of Sciences. Of course, this is particularly true when the mainstream press has people like George Will in it blatantly quoting from the peer-reviewed literature out-of-context. (That example in the OP has to be about the worst example of an out-of-context quote that I have ever seen.)

[elucidator]

Hmmm. If we make him Commissioner of Baseball, will he STFU?

[Magiver]

As much as I've enjoyed the tails of carbon woe from the jet-setting scientist Al Gore I'm left with a growing number of scientists who disagree with the current atmosphere of climatology.

Should I wait until there is parity between the different opinions before I listen to both sides or do I continue to light an LED candle for the doomed planet in blissful acceptance of the status quo?

[Typo Knig]

Hmmm. If we make him Commissioner of Baseball, will he STFU?

Nope, he'll just get all metaphorical (http://snltranscripts.jt.org/89/89qsportsmachine.phtml) on us.

[elucidator]

As much as I've enjoyed the tails of carbon woe from the jet-setting scientist Al Gore I'm left with a growing number of scientists who disagree with the current atmosphere of climatology.

Should I wait until there is parity between the different opinions before I listen to both sides or do I continue to light an LED candle for the doomed planet in blissful acceptance of the status quo?

I'm sure many of us are somewhat surprised to hear of this "growing number". Perhaps you can share with us? I've heard this in passing from others, but they were regrettably busy with pressing appointments, and hadn't the time to specify this unimpeachable evidence.

As to President Elect Gore, I've little doubt that he has his faults, and hypocrisy may well be amongst them. But the issue is the message, not the messenger. His personal failings mean little to me, and don't mean shit to a tree.

[RTFirefly]

Hmmm. If we make him Commissioner of Baseball, will he STFU?
I'd gladly see him appointed Commissioner of Baseball if he had to give up his role as pundit in order to do so.


Will apparently has this reputation as a very intelligent, erudite commentator. I don't know what he's like on TV, because I don't watch any to speak of. But in his syndicated column, he's a total moron who doesn't even write particularly well.

With only a few exceptions, the Washington Post op-ed page resembles nothing more than a flock of tenured professors at a backwater college who know it doesn't matter whether they do their jobs well or poorly, and have been phoning it in for years. But even among that sad group, the lack of quality of Will's columns manages to stand out.

[elucidator]

He should eschew obfuscatory sesquipedalianism.

[Rand Rover]

I'm sure many of us are somewhat surprised to hear of this "growing number". Perhaps you can share with us? I've heard this in passing from others, but they were regrettably busy with pressing appointments, and hadn't the time to specify this unimpeachable evidence.

Start here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

As to President Elect Gore, I've little doubt that he has his faults, and hypocrisy may well be amongst them. But the issue is the message, not the messenger. His personal failings mean little to me, and don't mean shit to a tree.

The messenger is getting rich from the message. Al Gore is James Taggart come to life and write large, getting the government to enact policies to line his pockets.

[The Second Stone]

George Will is generally an idiot. Because some scientists were wrong about a climate prediction in the distant past, a consensus of all peer reviewed climate scientists forty years later must be wrong? I'll concede that George Will has the ability to write pretty, but his logic is no better than that of run of the mill conservatives: a collection of prejudices and fallacies. (And by prejudices I mean preconceived ideas, not racism. Although I will say that he is oddly obsessed with black people.)

[wevets]

Start here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html



Your source doesn't seem to be well-thought of. In fact, he appears to have an award "Guardian columnist George Monbiot has just launched the Christopher Booker prize, to be awarded to whoever "manages, in the course of 2009, to cram as many misrepresentations, distortions and falsehoods into a single article, statement, lecture, film or interview about climate change." It's named after a columnist at the competing Telegraph, a man who manages to get just about everything wrong, and not just about climate change." according to Greg Laden (http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/02/challenge_to_climate_deniers_c.php). Any reason we should believe Booker has a shred of truth in his column?

[wevets]

Oops - that should say "James Hrynyshyn" instead of "Greg Laden" above - they both blog over at scienceblogs.com

[GIGObuster]

From Rand Rover's cite:

This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.
This is can only be described as Horse Shit.

To be canceled, 2008 should have reached the temperature levels of the early years of the 20th century:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

There was a drop in 2008, but even more severe drops can be seen in the Global Temperature graphs on the way to the hotter current years. The conclusion seen in many other sources, that the last 10 years (including 2008) are still among the hottest in more than 100 years still stands.

I will let others show how misleading that piece is in the other points.

[elucidator]

And what's up with this "James Taggart" stuff? Is that a LOTR reference? A porn star?

[wevets]

And what's up with this "James Taggart" stuff? Is that a LOTR reference? A porn star?

A two-dimensionally evil character from Atlas Shrugged. Taggart is the biggest strawman of Rand's (Ayn, not Rover) "badly-made wicker man*"-filled polemic.




*Borrowed from another Doper's synopsis of Atlas Shrugged - I loved that turn of phrase.

[Magiver]

I'm sure many of us are somewhat surprised to hear of this "growing number". Perhaps you can share with us? I've heard this in passing from others, but they were regrettably busy with pressing appointments, and hadn't the time to specify this unimpeachable evidence. Geeze, I dunna, just keep hearing it on the news which would be from one of the big 3 broadcast networks (I like variety). Maybe they haven't been told to suppress it yet. I just googled it on wiki (global warming,scientific consensus). I suppose there are more. Wouldn't matter to you anyway.

President Elect Gore HaHaHaHaHaHaHa, is there global warming in your alternate universe?

[GIGObuster]

And what's up with this "James Taggart" stuff? Is that a LOTR reference? A porn star?

A reference to Atlas Shrugged, as wevets reports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_in_Atlas_Shrugged#James_Taggart
The Looters
A group of antagonistic characters sometimes referred to as "James Taggart and his friends". They are similar to the Moochers. The Looters consist of men and women who use force to obtain value from those who produce it. They seek to destroy the producers despite the fact that they are dependent upon them
IMHO it is people like Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-undead) who fits the image of James Taggart:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/24/inhofe-third-reich/
In an interview, he heaped criticism on what he saw as the strategy used by those on the other side of the debate and offered a historical comparison.

“It kind of reminds . . . I could use the Third Reich, the big lie,” Inhofe said.

...

UPDATE: Inhofe also compared An Inconvenient Truth to Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf.

[Fubaya]

I had this notion thrown up years ago by a global warming skeptic and decided to search around. At the time, I found a site which attempted to compile articles from the 70-80s about global cooling but could only come up with a handful which also crumbled upon reading more than a snippet. I believe they even offered a reward for anyone who could find more, but I can't find that site now. If George Will can cite all those papers, he should be smart enough to google 70s global cooling (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=70s+"global+cooling"&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=).

[GIGObuster]

Geeze, I dunna, just keep hearing it on the news which would be from one of the big 3 broadcast networks (I like variety). Maybe they haven't been told to suppress it yet. I just googled it on wiki (global warming,scientific consensus). I suppose there are more. Wouldn't matter to you anyway.
It would not matter to him, but it does to me and others, cite please.

[Magiver]

It would not matter to him, but it does to me and others, cite please. I could have sworn I sited a list. As I said, I wasn't keeping a track of it's update. I've still got my officlal global warming alter up, I just don't know how many times a days I have to look left and worship.

[Rand Rover]

And what's up with this "James Taggart" stuff? Is that a LOTR reference? A porn star?

Well this just adds a whole heap more :rolleyes: to your post in the thread discussing Atlas Shrugged, a book you have apparently not read.

[elucidator]

Hook, line, and sinker. Damn, but I'm good!

[brazil84]

George Will is generally an idiot. Because some scientists were wrong about a climate prediction in the distant past, a consensus of all peer reviewed climate scientists forty years later must be wrong?

As I've noted in other threads, I have yet to see a convincing case made that some super majority of scientists accepts that hypothesis that the increases in CO2 levels which are taking place will cause dangerous levels of warming, i.e. warming which is likely to have signifiacant negative effects.

Most or all of the statements I have seen contain plenty of weasel language. Not only that, but most or all of the organizations involved are not consensus organizations, i.e. their statements do not necessarily represent the views of their members.

In short, 20 years down the road, there will be plenty of ammunition for people to argue that there was no consensus about global warming just as today it is being argued that there was no consensus about an impending ice age.

[Rand Rover]

Hook, line, and sinker. Damn, but I'm good!

. . . and the inevitable "I was just joiking" explanation. Not buying it.

[Lobohan]

I could have sworn I sited a list. As I said, I wasn't keeping a track of it's update. I've still got my officlal global warming alter up, I just don't know how many times a days I have to look left and worship.

Did you cite a list? And you're not keeping track of its update? And you have an altar set up? Am I being wooshed or are we supposed to take your opinion on a scientific issue like climate change seriously when you have such searing deficits in your education?

Just because you want global warming to be false doesn't make it so. Believing a few crackpots when the vast majority of working climate scientists from different countries, organizations and political stripes find the case for global warming to be compelling is simply stupidity.

Not to get bogged down, but do you think Gore should have walked to his talks around the world?

[GIGObuster]

In short, 20 years down the road, there will be plenty of ammunition for people to argue that there was no consensus about global warming just as today it is being argued that there was no consensus about an impending ice age.
After reading the cite of jshore this statement makes no sense.

[GIGObuster]

The wikipedia entry on climate change consensus has cites, and it should be read before anyone comes still claiming that there is no consensus, this item is relevant IMO:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Statements by dissenting organizations

Although there have been some individual scientists who have made statements opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, with the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate changes.[66]

[Lobohan]

As I've noted in other threads, I have yet to see a convincing case made that some super majority of scientists accepts that hypothesis that the increases in CO2 levels which are taking place will cause dangerous levels of warming, i.e. warming which is likely to have signifiacant negative effects.I guess it depends on your definition of "significant."

Although a lot of people much more qualified than you find the case compelling.

Most or all of the statements I have seen contain plenty of weasel language. Doesn't the sentence preceding this one contain weasel language?

In short, 20 years down the road, there will be plenty of ammunition for people to argue that there was no consensus about global warming just as today it is being argued that there was no consensus about an impending ice age.Nonsense. It's the majority view now. Global cooling never was.

[Magiver]

Did you cite a list? And you're not keeping track of its update? And you have an altar set up? Am I being wooshed or are we supposed to take your opinion on a scientific issue like climate change seriously when you have such searing deficits in your education?

Just because you want global warming to be false doesn't make it so. Believing a few crackpots when the vast majority of working climate scientists from different countries, organizations and political stripes find the case for global warming to be compelling is simply stupidity.
Uh huh. Not sure why the original link didn't work but which of the scientists in this cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming) are you dismissing and why?

Have you ever asked yourself why the focus of this life or death crisis rests on the elimination of fossil fuels? No discussion of the best financial solution is ever mentioned except to stop the burning of natural resources?

[Lobohan]

Uh huh. Not sure why the original link didn't work but which of the scientists in this cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming) are you dismissing and why?Well a bunch of them are geographers, geologists, physicists or chemists. Do you consult a script writer when you want to build a bridge? Shouldn't climate scientists be the ones to judge this very complex issue? Why don't any of these people publish work in peer reviewed journals crushing AGW? Could it be because they can't, because their knowledge of the issues is superficial. Never mind that that page has what, twenty or thirty names? You can find thirty people who think Atlantis was real.

Have you ever asked yourself why the focus of this life or death crisis rests on the elimination of fossil fuels? No discussion of the best financial solution is ever mentioned except to stop the burning of natural resources?You do realize that the burning of fossil fuels is the main cause, right? If you were bleeding to death I wouldn't brush your hair. I'd stop the blood loss. Which is the problem.

Get it? They call that a metaphor. :D

[Magiver]

Well a bunch of them are geographers, geologists, physicists or chemists. Do you consult a script writer when you want to build a bridge? Shouldn't climate scientists be the ones to judge this very complex issue? Why don't any of these people publish work in peer reviewed journals crushing AGW? Could it be because they can't, because their knowledge of the issues is superficial. Never mind that that page has what, twenty or thirty names? You can find thirty people who think Atlantis was real. You haven't answered the question other than to make a blanket dismissal. You are virtually incapable of hearing anything they say.

You do realize that the burning of fossil fuels is the main cause, right? If you were bleeding to death I wouldn't brush your hair. I'd stop the blood loss. Which is the problem.

Get it? They call that a metaphor. :D You can put out a fire by dumping 3 tons of sand on it or you could use a fire extinquisher. Most people would use a fire extinquisher. Where's the discussion about fire extinquishers? Wouldn't it make sense to spend the least amount of money to fix the problem?

[Deeg]

As much as I've enjoyed the tails of carbon woe from the jet-setting scientist Al Gore
I see your problem. Al Gore isn't a scientist; pay no attention to what Al Gore says on AGW. For that matter, pay little attention to the popular press. I'd go straight to the scientists. (http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf)

[Peter Morris]

Global Warming or new ice age.

The two are not contradictory. You can have hotter average temperatures over the the globe as a whole, while individual parts become colder. You can therefore have global warming AND a new ice age at the same time.


The theory goes like this:

1) UK and northern Europe are heated by the Gulf Stream.

2) Global Warming causes Arctic ice to melt.

3) cold, unsalted water drifts southward.

4) cold water may affect the Gulf Stream.

5) bye bye warm weather in Northern Europe.


How Global Warming May Cause the Next Ice Age... (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm)

I don't know how widely accepted this theory is. I understand that it is regarded as a possibility, rather than a certainty, with the variables being too complex to say for certain.

New Scientist disagrees. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11838)

[GIGObuster]

Uh huh. Not sure why the original link didn't work but which of the scientists in this cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming) are you dismissing and why?

As the other cite shows, the ones in your cite are not as impressive or convincing, one clue why is what Lobohan pointed at, but the big clue is in the title of the cite:

"List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming."

(bolding mine)

As I can see from previous discussions, it is actually the consensus view that has grown, while the still minority view is shrinking.

[waterj2]

Incidentally, does anyone know of any prominent names that have publicly switched sides in either direction in the past few years? Both sides claim to be gaining support, but I haven't seen any evidence that either has lost any support among its vocal proponents. Has there been anything along these lines?

[GIGObuster]

Incidentally, does anyone know of any prominent names that have publicly switched sides in either direction in the past few years? Both sides claim to be gaining support, but I haven't seen any evidence that either has lost any support among its vocal proponents. Has there been anything along these lines?
One thing that is missed often is that this was a process that took a long time, many deniers just choose to ignore the history of how this came to be; in essence, just look at the cite for the Scientific opinion on climate change consensus already posted, then read the history of The Discovery of Global Warming:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

And then you will realize that all the groups and the majority of scientists mentioned in the cite had to be convinced with the evidence that CO2 and other man made gasses were becoming a problem.

IMHO the remaining groups that deny this are beginning to resemble creationists in relation to biological science, the methods used by the deniers in recent discussions are reaching underhanded levels.

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

Incidentally, does anyone know of any prominent names that have publicly switched sides in either direction in the past few years? Both sides claim to be gaining support, but I haven't seen any evidence that either has lost any support among its vocal proponents. Has there been anything along these lines?

I don't know how major he is, but Minnesota's state climatologist Mark Seeley was once a global warming skeptic, but he now holds the position that the evidence for global warming is overwhelming.

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

As I've noted in other threads, I have yet to see a convincing case made that some super majority of scientists accepts that hypothesis that the increases in CO2 levels which are taking place will cause dangerous levels of warming, i.e. warming which is likely to have signifiacant negative effects.

Most or all of the statements I have seen contain plenty of weasel language. Not only that, but most or all of the organizations involved are not consensus organizations, i.e. their statements do not necessarily represent the views of their members.

In short, 20 years down the road, there will be plenty of ammunition for people to argue that there was no consensus about global warming just as today it is being argued that there was no consensus about an impending ice age.

Your last paragraph there is so egregiously false it makes my head spin. Can you demonstrate that the global cooling "craze"generated even 1% of the scientific publications and and concern that global warming has spawned? I saw an episode of In Search Of.. once that dealt with the subject. As far as I know that was not a peer-reviewed publication, however. At any rate, Nessie and the Bermuda Triangle got tons more pub than the approaching ice age back in those days.

Just out of curiosity, what were the weasel words you found in the University of Illinois survey?

[Lobohan]

You can put out a fire by dumping 3 tons of sand on it or you could use a fire extinquisher. Most people would use a fire extinquisher. Where's the discussion about fire extinquishers? Wouldn't it make sense to spend the least amount of money to fix the problem?What is the method of spending the least amount of money again?

And as for the blanket dismissal... You're suggesting that your list of thirty names of scientists largely in other fields is somehow equitable to the mainstream scientific understanding? Why are you giving thirty non-experts more credence than the vast majority of climate scientists?

[Magiver]

As the other cite shows, the ones in your cite are not as impressive or convincing, one clue why is what Lobohan pointed at, but the big clue is in the title of the cite:

"List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming."

(bolding mine)

As I can see from previous discussions, it is actually the consensus view that has grown, while the still minority view is shrinking. So your logic here is that any scientist who disagrees is wrong therefore you cannot listen. It's just a matter of adding up scientists. what happens if the balance tips? Do you change your mind by decree because it sure sounds like that to me.

So to my original question, how many dissenting opinions does it take between now and the end of the world before it's politically correct to listen?

I found this (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb&Issue_id=) on the Senate web site showing 400 scientists who dissented in 2007 updated to 650 in 2008. The report. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9)

Pick a number so I'll know when I can discuss it.

[GIGObuster]

So your logic here is that any scientist who disagrees is wrong therefore you cannot listen. It's just a matter of adding up scientists. what happens if the balance tips? Do you change your mind by decree because it sure sounds like that to me.
This only works by ignoring the history of how the consensus appeared.

So to my original question, how many dissenting opinions does it take between now and the end of the world before it's politically correct to listen?
Even McCain agrees with the consensus, I still think the efforts of some to politicize this issue are creationist level insulting.

I found this (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb&Issue_id=) on the Senate web site showing 400 scientists who dissented in 2007 updated to 650 in 2008. The report. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9)

Pick a number so I'll know when I can discuss it.
:sigh: Inhofe again, IIRC those lists were already discussed, I really can not take seriously a report that, among other things, still insists that the "hockey stick" was debunked. NASA and other organizations still refer to it, the New Scientist still reports that it was a Myth that it was debunked and the original researchers are still working, debunked is not a word that I would use, unless the intent is to mislead.

[Magiver]

Even McCain agrees with the consensus.Well I'm convinced. I'll look for a peer review of his research by the noted Senator turned Nobel Prize winning climatologist Al Gore.

How's that number coming along?

[GIGObuster]

Well I'm convinced. I'll look for a peer review of his research by the noted Senator turned Nobel Prize winning climatologist Al Gore.
George Will is the main subject here, but I see why you would not be willing or able to defend his misleading quotes.

How's that number coming along?
The site already mentioned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Statements by dissenting organizations

Although there have been some individual scientists who have made statements opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, with the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate changes.[66]
Deals also with the organizations that follow the current consensus.

It is important to notice that on the last list cited by you, many where not climate scientists, so the number you are talking about does not mean much as most of it are only opinions not supported with papers published in climate research; it is curious IMO (taking into account the wiki cite) that many of the scientists mentioned by Inhofe are geologists.

[Magiver]

The site already mentioned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
. That's not a number, that's a site. How many scientists will it take before you remove your fingers from your ears. It doesn't mean you have to agree with any of them.

Pick a number. It's a simple question. No tricks.

[GIGObuster]

That's not a number, that's a site. How many scientists will it take before you remove your fingers from your ears. It doesn't mean you have to agree with any of them.

Pick a number. It's a simple question. No tricks.
Sorry, you are making the trick, Inhofe's numbers are misleading and unreliable, History shows it was only about 1 or 2 in favor of Global warming at the beginning of the 20th century, it took lots of effort and evidence to convince almost all of the climate scientists and the majority of related researchers to accept it , now seeing the deniers in the minority and using misleading tactics like George Will is just pitiful.

Once the majority of climate scientists come with criticism of the current view is when one can agree with the contrarians. This is assuming deniers come up with supporting evidence, so far, at least in the SDMB, I have seen only misleading info from the deniers and very little on the way of published papers supporting them.

[The Second Stone]

As I've noted in other threads, I have yet to see a convincing case made that some super majority of scientists accepts that hypothesis that the increases in CO2 levels which are taking place will cause dangerous levels of warming, i.e. warming which is likely to have signifiacant negative effects.

Most or all of the statements I have seen contain plenty of weasel language. Not only that, but most or all of the organizations involved are not consensus organizations, i.e. their statements do not necessarily represent the views of their members.

In short, 20 years down the road, there will be plenty of ammunition for people to argue that there was no consensus about global warming just as today it is being argued that there was no consensus about an impending ice age.

Will you concede that some scientists have published peer reviewed papers in journals stating that CO2 levels are increasing and will cause long term warming? And that CO2 levels are increasing as a result of human activities? I'm assuming that you will concede that some scientists have made such peer reviewed publications.

I will not concede that any climatologist has published an contrary paper in a peer reviewed journal. Not a fucking one. That isn't a supermajority, true. It is unanimous. Rush Limbaugh and George Will are not scientists, much less climatologists, much less published one on this subject.

[Magiver]

Sorry, you are making the trick, Inhofe's numbers are misleading and unreliable, History shows it was only about 1 or 2 in favor of Global warming at the beginning of the 20th century, it took lots of effort and evidence to convince almost all of the climate scientists and the majority of related researchers to accept it , now seeing the deniers in the minority and using misleading tactics like George Will is just pitiful.

Once the majority of climate scientists come with criticism of the current view is when one can agree with the contrarians. This is assuming deniers come up with supporting evidence, so far, at least in the SDMB, I have seen only misleading info from the deniers and very little on the way of published papers supporting them.
All I asked for was a number that represented a point when it's politically safe to acknowledge there are legitimate voices of dissention. So far I'm hearing the words "la la la la la" from people who are forbidden by PC law to allow a discussion.

So, I'll ask again. How many scientists with dissenting opinion would it take for a discussion to take place?

[GIGObuster]

All I asked for was a number that represented a point when it's politically safe to acknowledge there are legitimate voices of dissention. So far I'm hearing the words "la la la la la" from people who are forbidden by PC law to allow a discussion.

So, I'll ask again. How many scientists with dissenting opinion would it take for a discussion to take place?

:rolleyes:

IMHO it is when over 50% begins to say something different, and it is you who is really not dealing with the numbers. Not all of the scientists in Inhofe's list are relevant and many are only giving an opinion not based on research, so it is silly to pretend you have a proper number.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

All I asked for was a number that represented a point when it's politically safe to acknowledge there are legitimate voices of dissention. So far I'm hearing the words "la la la la la" from people who are forbidden by PC law to allow a discussion.

So, I'll ask again. How many scientists with dissenting opinion would it take for a discussion to take place?

Why don't you finally admit that it's a stupid question? There is no magic number. It depends on a number of factors, like (as was pointed out above) how consensus was achieved, what the qualifications of the dissenters/nondissenters are, what biasing factors are present, etc. It's like you're asking, "Exactly how many hairs must a person lose before they are considered bald? I insist on a precise number!" It's nonsense.

And besides, discussion has taken place. You are acting as though there is some conspiracy to silence global warming dissenters. As has been documented throughout this thread, there was plenty of debate over global warming, but evidence swung scientific consensus in the direction of AGW. You are complaining because people aren't treating something that has been fairly well-established as though it were an open question. You're not advocating free inquiry; you're advocating bad science.

[MrDibble]

it is curious IMO (taking into account the wiki cite) that many of the scientists mentioned by Inhofe are geologists.

This is not so strange when you consider that one of the techniques we are taught to recognise rocks, is to wet them in order to better see details. Now, most geologists carry a waterbottle, and will use that, but some ... well, don't spread it about, but some just don't recognise cinnabar until they've given it a good licking.

Either that, or the high number of geologists emplyed by oil companies might signify, but I don't know, I still think "Cinnabar lickers" :mad:

[MrDibble]

How many scientists with dissenting opinion would it take for a discussion to take place?

IMO? When around 25% of peer reviewed scientific articles are bucking the consensus, then we should listen.

ETA: Hell, I'll be stupidly generous: when 5% of accredited climatology journal articles take an unambiguous "No AGW" stance, the time will come to re-evaluate.

[brazil84]

Will you concede that some scientists have published peer reviewed papers in journals stating that CO2 levels are increasing and will cause long term warming?

I certainly wouldn't deny it. But in any event, I am happy to concede for all purposes that CO2 levels are increasing and that increased levels of CO2 are very likely to cause long term warming.

Because that's not the critical issue. The critical issue is whether CO2 induced warming will cause water vapor levels to increase, causing further warming, causing water vapor levels to increase further, and so on, resulting in warming which will have significant negative effects.

I have called this the "CAGW Hypothesis," it's the only hypothesis that really matters in this discussion.

And that CO2 levels are increasing as a result of human activities? I'm assuming that you will concede that some scientists have made such peer reviewed publications.

Again, I won't deny it.

I will not concede that any climatologist has published an contrary paper in a peer reviewed journal. Not a fucking one. That isn't a supermajority, true. It is unanimous. Rush Limbaugh and George Will are not scientists, much less climatologists, much less published one on this subject.

Contrary to what? The CAGW Hypothesis? Or some other claim?

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Nate Silver (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/george-f-will-takes-on-science-loses.html) at FiveThirtyEight.com takes George Will to task for his erroneous and baseless arguments. Being the statistical wonk that he is, he illustrates Will's folly with some graphs (constructed from NASA data) of global temperature anomaly over time, graphs which, as far as I'm concerned, put the boot to climate change deniers, who, as GIGObuster has noted above, "are beginning to resemble creationists in relation to biological science, the methods used by the deniers in recent discussions are reaching underhanded levels."

[brazil84]

Nate Silver (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/george-f-will-takes-on-science-loses.html) at FiveThirtyEight.com takes George Will to task for his erroneous and baseless arguments. Being the statistical wonk that he is, he illustrates Will's folly with some graphs (constructed from NASA data) of global temperature anomaly over time, graphs which, as far as I'm concerned, put the boot to climate change deniers,

I don't think there is serious dispute that climate can and does change. To me, temperature graphs of the past 100 years or so actually cast doubt on the CAGW Hypothesis. Because they suggest a question which has not yet been answered satisfactorilly, as far as I know:

What, if anything, caused the increase in global surface temperatures which took place roughly in the first half of the 20th century?

[Sinaijon]

ETA: Hell, I'll be stupidly generous: when 5% of accredited climatology journal articles take an unambiguous "No AGW" stance, the time will come to re-evaluate.

Why articles? Why not 5% of climatologists?

[Chronos]

Why articles? Why not 5% of climatologists?Because then you'll see assorted crazies and Exxon shills and other unreliable folks calling themselves climate scientists just to claim that XYZCAGW is false. Asking for peer-reviewed papers filters out most of the crazies.

Besides, in science, it's the research itself that's important, not the people doing it.

Meanwhile, can someone tell me just who exactly George Will is supposed to be or to do, and why anyone should care what he thinks?

[elucidator]

Busted! As in totally!

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/where_theres_a_george_will_theres_a_way_to_deny_gl.php

(Warning! Liberal blogger site, tighty rightys advised to observe anti-cootie protocols!)

....According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.....
Georgie

We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km....

University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center website, as quoted.

[Sinaijon]

Besides, in science, it's the research itself that's important, not the people doing it.


Then why do you discount research done by Exxon? Yes, they have an interest in disproving AGW. But if you see 'Exxon' next to the name and discount it, you are not judging the research, you are judging the people.

[waterj2]

Then why do you discount research done by Exxon? Yes, they have an interest in disproving AGW. But if you see 'Exxon' next to the name and discount it, you are not judging the research, you are judging the people.Not to put words in Chronos's mouth, but he never said he's discounting research done by Exxon. He's the one that insisted on peer-reviewed articles, not just polls of climatologists, precisely to avoid judging the issue by the people involved.

[brazil84]

Besides, in science, it's the research itself that's important, not the people doing it.


So you would agree that the published, peer-reviewed papers of Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer should not be discounted because of the identities of their authors?

[Sinaijon]

University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center website, as quoted.

If you actually go to their website, you'll see they are very specific about stating the Feb 15th date. If you read the quote, and then follow the very next link, they actully fess up that ice was about the same on Dec31, 2008 as it was on Dec 31, 1979. A little bit of cherry picking going on.

FWIW, here's a chart from their website about global ice. Pretty enlightening.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Given the huge monthly variations in global ice, it's pretty easy to cherry pick which month you want to use to support any position you'd like.

[Sinaijon]

Not to put words in Chronos's mouth, but he never said he's discounting research done by Exxon.

Maybe, but then why use the phrase 'crazies and Exxon shills and other unreliable folks'? It certainly seems he's lumping their research in with the others. But if not, I'll retract.

[Lobohan]

If you actually go to their website, you'll see they are very specific about stating the Feb 15th date. If you read the quote, and then follow the very next link, they actully fess up that ice was about the same on Dec31, 2008 as it was on Dec 31, 1979. A little bit of cherry picking going on.

FWIW, here's a chart from their website about global ice. Pretty enlightening.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Given the huge monthly variations in global ice, it's pretty easy to cherry pick which month you want to use to support any position you'd like.I'm getting on to work, so I don't have time to read the relevant articles right now, but at first glance it seems to me that one of the current problems is that it's warming faster in the year. Dec 31st is dead in winter. So long as the temp stays below a threshold it's going to have the same amount of ice.

Feb 15th is approaching spring and presumably feels the effects of yearly warming. If it is getting warmer on Feb 15th you can actually see the effects. Does that make sense?

1° when it's -20° doesn't impact ice. But one degree when it's 32° can cause melting days or weeks earlier.

Like I said, I might be off target since I don't have time to read the links, but it seems like the time of year does certainly matter.

[elucidator]

.....it's pretty easy to cherry pick which month you want to use to support any position you'd like

So, then, the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center is lying in order to embarrass renowned climatologist George F. Will? Gee, I dunno......

[BlinkingDuck]

I don't have much more to add to the OP's very good deconstruction of the "global cooling" myth except to point out that there is also a more recent RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/langswitch_lang/in) article discussing a paper that Connelley and co-author have now published documenting that even during the 1970s the peer reviewed literature had many more articles on global warming than cooling...So, not only was there no consensus on global cooling, it wasn't even close to being a majority opinion in the peer-reviewed literature!



As someone who has brought up the cglobal cooling scare of the 70's here on the Dope and been told that it was media hype and not scientific hype, I did some looking into it...

and found that appears to be the case. I remember even finding an article on scientists testifying before congress about global warming in 1982 (not that far from the 70'S).

Looks like it was media hype.

[begbert2]

Maybe, but then why use the phrase 'crazies and Exxon shills and other unreliable folks'? It certainly seems he's lumping their research in with the others. But if not, I'll retract.It looked more like he was applying concrete examples of the more general set "people who are deliberately doing bad science due to either applying a predjudice to the interpretation of the data, or to deliberately subverting the data with malice aforethought".

But if you don't like the specifics, you could probably just interpret him as saying that he likes the peer-reviewed journals because they filter out bad science.

[Chronos]

I have no problem at all with Exxon doing science. In fact, we'd probably be better off if they did more of it. My problem isn't with Exxon funding scientists, but with them funding shills, that is, people who are stating results based on what Exxon is paying them to say, rather than on what the research actually indicates. How do we tell the difference between the two? One method is the peer review process. It's not perfect, of course: Some good science will get improperly rejected, and some bad science will get improperly accepted. But it's better than just listening to everyone without any filters.

[MrDibble]

Why articles? Why not 5% of climatologists?

Because if it's not peer-reviewed, it's just, like, their opinion, man!

[elucidator]

Not so bad as all that, Chronos. I suspect, but cannot prove, that a lot of the current ammunition we have at hand is a result of honest funding, but faulty presumption. The Exxon people likely sincerely believe that they are innocent of planetary rape, and offered funding to prove it, content and sincere in their belief that such impartial research would show them blameless.

So, they hired respected and competent scientists, fulling expecting the results would favor their opinions. When they didn't, then they went looking for shills.

[brazil84]

I have no problem at all with Exxon doing science. In fact, we'd probably be better off if they did more of it. My problem isn't with Exxon funding scientists, but with them funding shills, that is, people who are stating results based on what Exxon is paying them to say, rather than on what the research actually indicates. How do we tell the difference between the two? One method is the peer review process. It's not perfect, of course: Some good science will get improperly rejected, and some bad science will get improperly accepted. But it's better than just listening to everyone without any filters.

Is Richard Lindzen a shill? Should his peer-reviewed papers be discounted?

[MrDibble]

So you would agree that the published, peer-reviewed papers of Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer should not be discounted because of the identities of their authors?

Who's discounting their peer-reviewed articles?

Of course, Energy and Environment is not a peer-review journal.

[Chronos]

Is Richard Lindzen a shill? Should his peer-reviewed papers be discounted?I do not know Richard Lindzen. Maybe he is a shill; I don't know. But if he's gotten peer-reviewed papers published, then we should pay heed to them, even if he does happen to be a shill. This still does not mean assuming that they're absolutely correct (an assumption which should never be made of any scientific finding), but intellectual honesty requires that we pay heed to any results which make it through the filters, regardless of our personal opinions.

[brazil84]

I do not know Richard Lindzen.

As far as I know, he is a professor at MIT and a prominent "skeptic."

But if he's gotten peer-reviewed papers published, then we should pay heed to them, even if he does happen to be a shill. This still does not mean assuming that they're absolutely correct (an assumption which should never be made of any scientific finding), but intellectual honesty requires that we pay heed to any results which make it through the filters, regardless of our personal opinions.

I'm glad to hear you say that. It seems that many people are rather dismissive of his work based on ad hominem reasons. Ditto for Roy Spencer.

[DSeid]

I'm with Nate Silver on this one: I may often disagree with Will but I've usually found him to be smart and honest; his lying now is depressing and frankly puzzling.

I do not care if you accept the current clear consensus or are one of the few persistent global climate change deniers (we can just play the tape for one of those debates again) - the novel issue here is the untrue claim that there was some scientific consensus in the past about a particular subject that clearly never existed, the making shit up to support his claim, and the cherry picking of quotes out of context to make something that is not true appear as if it is.

Assume you think he is right in his conclusions, are his tactics, as enumerated above, anything other than reprehensible?

[Kimstu]

So you would agree that the published, peer-reviewed papers of Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer should not be discounted because of the identities of their authors?

That's an easy one: of course. And in fact, other climate scientists have discussed the published peer-reviewed research of Lindzen and Spencer extensively in their own published peer-reviewed research. (One example is the work of Bing Lin investigating Lindzen's hypothesized "iris effect", discussed here (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Iris/iris2.php).)

Nobody's suggesting that a published paper should be automatically ignored just because of the name that's attached to it. On the other hand, if a particular scientist has an extensive track record of producing research that is publishable but flawed, so that s/he seldom or never in the long run succeeds in establishing a line of argument that is generally accepted as credible, colleagues and readers are entitled to take that track record into account when assessing that scientist's overall reliability.

I for one would not want self-described "skeptics" like Lindzen and Spencer to stop publishing in peer-reviewed journals as long as they can produce publishable research, even if upon examination their conclusions persistently turn out to be wrong. Erroneous hypotheses are very useful in a developing discipline, as they test the field's error-checking mechanisms and prevent people from getting complacent about the conventional wisdom.

And of course, if Lindzen or Spencer or another skeptic manages to produce an anti-AGW hypothesis that convincingly appears non-erroneous, they will have done climate science and the whole world an immense service. So far, however, the major anti-AGW hypotheses that they've published in peer-reviewed journals all seem to fall into the category "intelligent, sincere, and wrong".

[Magiver]

IMO? When around 25% of peer reviewed scientific articles are bucking the consensus, then we should listen.

ETA: Hell, I'll be stupidly generous: when 5% of accredited climatology journal articles take an unambiguous "No AGW" stance, the time will come to re-evaluate. See how easy it was to pick a number. 5%. I'll keep my LED candles lit and drive my 38 mpg econobox until then.

[Magiver]

So, then, the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center is lying in order to embarrass renowned climatologist George F. Will? Gee, I dunno...... I'm always leary when I see specific dates in a climate discussion. I'd be more interested in the average ice coverage between winter seasons and that's what I would expect from a University. I'd also like a qualifier on the yearly span of time because we just came out of a hotter solar cycle and the satellite data is relatively new. All that should be explained and matched to predicted models. AFAIK, any claims, from either side of the issue, involve a rediculously small time frame.

[Kimstu]

See how easy it was to pick a number. 5%. I'll keep my LED candles lit and drive my 38 mpg econobox until then.

But this is just silly snarking. Your original question about what's the minimum number required "to acknowledge that their are legitimate voices of dissension" is absurd on its face. Only one legitimate voice of dissension is required to force such an acknowledgement, and in fact, that acknowledgement now exists. Everybody recognizes that there are legitimate scientists offering valid critiques and plausible alternatives to particular aspects of the mainstream hypotheses about global warming.

What you seem to be trying to do is to elide the distinction between "acknowledgement of legitimate voices of dissension" and "recognition of serious challenge to the fundamental agreement on the key scientific issues of global warming". The former currently exists. The latter does not, and the prospects of its future existence are not looking bright.

So, make sure that your 38 mpg (That's what you consider high mileage? :dubious: ) "econobox" is in good shape, because you'll likely be driving it a while. But please turn off those unnecessary LED candles and just put up a picture of candles instead; it has just as much symbolic value and uses zero electricity.

[RTFirefly]

I'm with Nate Silver on this one: I may often disagree with Will but I've usually found him to be smart and honest; his lying now is depressing and frankly puzzling. I spent a few months last summer and fall blogging about the Washington Post op-ed page, which forced me to actually read the damned thing more thoroughly than I had in years.

At least during that stretch of time, Will was not smart, not honest, and didn't even write particularly well. He is frequently prone to inventing his own facts, making abysmally bad arguments, and constructing columns that resembled random mental walks.

You may have noticed the surge of paranoia about Fairness Doctrine reinstatement on the right, these past few months. Guess who got the ball rolling on that, in his columns last August 17 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081503101.html) and September 18 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/17/AR2008091702975.html)? In the latter column, Will said, "Unless McCain is president, the government will reinstate the equally misnamed fairness doctrine.' " In the former, he more or less assumed Congress would try to do so, saying that McCain should promise to veto it if elected.

He wrote a column on September 18 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/17/AR2008091702975.html), weeks after the extent of Palin's willingness to repeat false 'facts' after they'd repeatedly been proven wrong was out there for all to see, saying: "Palin is as bracing as an Arctic breeze and delightfully elicits the condescension of liberals whose enthusiasm for everyday middle-class Americans cannot survive an encounter with one."

As I said at the time: "I guess Will has missed her habitual lying, her running a small town like a martinet, her refusal to cooperate with a governmental investigation, her firing of officials who refused to participate in her personal vendettas against members of her family, and her seeking of hundreds of millions of dollars of Federal handouts for genuinely worthless and idiotic projects.

Or maybe those are the sort of small-town American values that Will finds so refreshing. Hard to tell." (Snarky, but true.)

In August, Will had a column (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/20/AR2008082002947.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) about a marvelous little (only 200 students) inner-city charter school, being run by a Native American who made a fortune in real estate, then decided to do Good Works. The teachers, Will tells us, come from "come from places such as Harvard, Dartmouth, Oberlin, Columbia, Berkeley, Brown and Wesleyan." The school was excellent. The problem with the column was the implication that this was some sort of possible solution to what ails America's schools (that, of course, Democrats, unions, and liberals were trying to prevent): it doesn't take but a minute's thought to realize that there's a replicability problem here. Will, of course, not only didn't give the question that particular minute's thought, but went back to the same well for another column in September. Nothing dishonest, just not too bright. A whole bunch of his columns during this period basically devolved into attempts to snark at Democrats, liberals, etc. on intellectually weak grounds.

Anyone who regards George F. Will as currently smart and honest is, IMHO, just not paying close attention. It's quite possible that that's the case with Nate Silver; he's got a different beat, and he's very good at it, but I doubt he's given a whole bunch of Will columns a close reading anytime lately. And since Will has this reputation of intelligence and erudition, it isn't surprising that Silver would give him the benefit of the doubt. Seven months ago, I would have.

[RTFirefly]

I found this (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb&Issue_id=) on the Senate web site showing 400 scientists who dissented in 2007 updated to 650 in 2008. The report. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9)
"Scientists." That's a pretty big word. I reckon I qualify, having this dusty Ph.D. in math lying around. And some of these folks clearly have got about as much game in the climate studies field as I do - that is to say, none.

Speaking of 'none,' I'll admit I checked only a smattering of the links on that document, but that's the number of links I found that went to peer-reviewed articles. And that, of course, is the coin of the realm here. So: how many peer-reviewed articles critical of anthropogenic climate change have these 650 scientists authored? Absent some links to those articles, that list means nothing.

[DSeid]

RTF, yes I must plead guilty to having not paid much attention to or close reading of Will, instead having caught a column here and there over the years that seemed reasonable. My ignorance as to the extent of his dishonesty and dimbulbedness is now reduced.

I do not yet see any of the climate change deniers yet defending his tactic of lying however. A bit of redirection to other red herring discussions, yeah, but at least no denying that Will's lying is beyond the pale.

[jshore]

To those who think that lists of scientists who don't agree on AGW such as Inhofe's are at all convincing, what makes them more convincing than lists like these (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html)?

By the way, there is a mini-industry in the blogosphere investigating some of the names of Inhofe's list. Here (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/more_on_inhofes_alleged_list_o.php) is one link to such discussion.

[The Second Stone]

Because that's not the critical issue. The critical issue is whether CO2 induced warming will cause water vapor levels to increase, causing further warming, causing water vapor levels to increase further, and so on, resulting in warming which will have significant negative effects.




Contrary to what? The CAGW Hypothesis? Or some other claim?

I haven't done the reading necessary to debate the water vapor issue. I've heard of it and don't know enough.

[brazil84]

I haven't done the reading necessary to debate the water vapor issue. I've heard of it and don't know enough.

I would strongly encourage you to investigate it. Water vapor feedback (or amplification) is a critical link in the global warming chain.

[Lamar Mundane]

I would strongly encourage you to investigate it. Water vapor feedback (or amplification) is a critical link in the global warming chain.

As it will be. I'm glad to see that you've acknowledged that AGW is a real phenomenon and not that "global warming is a hoax" and equivalent to the Nazi "big lie" as attributed to the afore mentioned James Inhofe.

Of course you must reject based on the objective data that "satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century."

Can we agree that statements from Sen. James Inhofe have been shown to be wrong and biased and that any future statements from his or his office should be regarded as likely biased when addressing AGW?

[brazil84]

As it will be. I'm glad to see that you've acknowledged that AGW is a real phenomenon and not that "global warming is a hoax" and equivalent to the Nazi "big lie" as attributed to the afore mentioned James Inhofe.

I'm not sure what your point is. The phrase "global warming" is ambiguous. I believe that the Hypothesis which I refer to as "CAGW" is essentially a hoax.

Of course you must reject based on the objective data that "satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century."

I'm not sure I understand this either, but I do concede that there was measurable warming in roughly the second half of the 20th century.

Can we agree that statements from Sen. James Inhofe have been shown to be wrong and biased and that any future statements from his or his office should be regarded as likely biased when addressing AGW?

You would have to quote some of these wrong and biased statements to me.

[Sailboat]

Just out of curiosity, for global warming deniers: are there any other areas of allegedly mainstream scientific consensus where you prefer the minority viewpoint, or is it just this one? Serious question.

[Lamar Mundane]

You would have to quote some of these wrong and biased statements to me.

Never mind. You already conceded it in your post. I gave you a direct quote from Inhofe and you agreed that it was false.

[brazil84]

Just out of curiosity, for global warming deniers:

I'm not sure what you mean by "global warming deniers." I reject the CAGW Hypothesis but do not deny that the world warmed in the second half of the 20th century.

are there any other areas of allegedly mainstream scientific consensus where you prefer the minority viewpoint, or is it just this one?

I'm not sure whether my viewpoint is in the minority. It's not so easy to determine this. Certainly the CAGW Hypothesis can be characterized as a popular view.

Serious question.

I'm not aware of any.

[brazil84]

Never mind. You already conceded it in your post. I gave you a direct quote from Inhofe and you agreed that it was false.

No I didn't. Here's what I said:

I'm not sure I understand this either, but I do concede that there was measurable warming in roughly the second half of the 20th century.

Whether the quote is false or not depends on how you interpret the word "meaningful." For kicks, I pulled up the speech and it would appear that Inhofe explicitly concedes that warming has taken place:

Using NOAA satellite readings of temperatures in the lower atmosphere, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) produced a dataset that shows global atmospheric warming at the rate of about 0.07 degrees C (about 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since November 1978.

"That works out to a global warming trend of about one and a quarter degrees Fahrenheit over 100 years," said Dr. John Christy, who compiled the comparison data. Christy concedes that such a trend "is probably due in part to human influences," but adds that "it's substantially less than the warming forecast by most climate models, and"-here is the key point-"it isn't entirely out of the range of climate change we might expect from natural causes."

[jshore]

Whether the quote is false or not depends on how you interpret the word "meaningful." For kicks, I pulled up the speech and it would appear that Inhofe explicitly concedes that warming has taken place:

Don't know when Inhofe's speech that included that quote is from but the quotes themseoves on the UAH trend are from 2003 (http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=96), which is before the latest major correction was made by Christy and Spencer to their data set. The current post-correction trend is 0.13 C / decade, which is still a bit below the trends over that time for the other satellite analysis and the two surface temperature records (all running about 0.16 C / decade, I believe)...but I think all four agree within the uncertainties.

[MrDibble]

Just out of curiosity, for global warming deniers: are there any other areas of allegedly mainstream scientific consensus where you prefer the minority viewpoint, or is it just this one? Serious question.

Well, I don't know about the people on this board, but the much-admired Richard Lindzen is also skeptical about the dangers of smoking, including the links to cancer.

[Kimstu]

Well, I don't know about the people on this board, but the much-admired Richard Lindzen is also skeptical about the dangers of smoking, including the links to cancer.

And the other "skeptic" mentioned by brazil84, Roy Spencer, is an advocate of Intelligent Design (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I):

Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. [...]

True evolution, in the macro-sense, has never been observed, only inferred. A population of moths that changes from light to dark based upon environmental pressures is not evolution -- they are still moths. A population of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics does not illustrate evolution -- they are still bacteria. [...] While natural selection can indeed preserve the stronger and more resilient members of a gene pool, intelligent design maintains that it cannot explain entirely new kinds of life -- and that is what evolution is. [...]

It is already legal to teach intelligent design in public schools. What is not currently legal is to mandate its teaching. The Supreme Court has ruled that this would violate the First Amendment's establishment of religion clause.

But I have some questions relating to this: Does not classical evolutionism, based almost entirely upon faith, violate the same clause? More importantly, what about the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

[...] At the very least, school textbooks should acknowledge that evolution is a theory of origins, it has not been proved, and that many scientists do not accept it.


It should certainly be noted that views like this, or Lindzen's views on the connection between smoking and cancer, have no direct bearing on the quality of their research on climate science. And if a research article on climate science that either of them or any other skeptic writes passes peer review (which, AFAIK, is usually conducted on article drafts with the author name(s) removed, precisely in order to minimize personal bias reactions from reviewers), then it deserves to be published and discussed seriously.

However, I think that it's fair to include such side issues in the overall "track record" assessment that I talked about in my previous post. Very few of us are going to be capable of scrutinizing the entire published output of any climate scientist and precisely evaluating its scientific merit. Consequently, it's not unreasonable for us to look at the scientist's general ideas and overall impact on his/her discipline, as a sort of rough "proxy" for the reliability of that scientist's work.

And by that proxy metric, neither Lindzen nor Spencer comes across as the most reliable climate scientist out there. Yes, both of them hold or have held very reputable positions in their field, and have produced much publishable research. But neither of them has been particularly successful in convincing other climate scientists that their hypotheses on global warming have enough merit to substantially challenge the consensus view. And ideologically, both of them seem to be committed "contrarians" who enjoy bucking the scientific mainstream for its own sake.

[brazil84]

Don't know when Inhofe's speech that included that quote is from but the quotes themseoves on the UAH trend are from 2003 (http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=96), which is before the latest major correction was made by Christy and Spencer to their data set. The current post-correction trend is 0.13 C / decade, which is still a bit below the trends over that time for the other satellite analysis and the two surface temperature records (all running about 0.16 C / decade, I believe)...but I think all four agree within the uncertainties.

Apparently the speech was from July 2003:

http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climate.htm

[Sir Dirx]

For those of you curious about geologists and their relevance to the debate, I imagine a main reason many of them are skeptical of AGW is because a graph showing a few thousand years doesn't really register. Geologists think in terms of millions of years; anything on the thousands scale is like a drop in the bucket, and not very geologically significant. And I do think that--while they're not climatologists--they can and should be valid contributors to the issue. Paleoclimate is far from a foreign concept to geologists. Granted, many focus on areas (tectonics, igneous petrology, etc) that have little to do paleoclimate, but many others (stratigraphers, paleontologists, etc) are fairly knowledgeable.

Disclaimer: I just came in here to answer that. I don't belong in GD as a participant, and in fact have no dog in the global warming debate.

[MrDibble]

For those of you curious about geologists and their relevance to the debate, I imagine a main reason many of them are skeptical of AGW is because a graph showing a few thousand years doesn't really register.I was a geologist, and I don't agree with this. I don't think any such bias is inherent to the field. Geologists think in terms of millions of years; anything on the thousands scale is like a drop in the bucket, and not very geologically significant.That's just not true - we study lots of phenomena that are on shorter timescales. Volcanoes, earthquakes, speleology etc. are some examples off the top of my head. And I do think that--while they're not climatologists--they can and should be valid contributors to the issue.
This is true. Especially glaciologists - after all, when you consider it, ice is just another mineral, and can be treated as such.

[Magiver]

Fortunately we have modern technology to rely on. Thanks to satellites (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY) we have information that is plus or minus 193,000 square miles.

[jshore]

Fortunately we have modern technology to rely on. Thanks to satellites (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY) we have information that is plus or minus 193,000 square miles.

The point being? I am sure that you are aware that modern technology does suffer from occasionally glitches. Does this cause you to deny all of modern science or just the parts that you don't like the implications of for political / philosophical reasons?

[Magiver]

The point being? I am sure that you are aware that modern technology does suffer from occasionally glitches. Does this cause you to deny all of modern science or just the parts that you don't like the implications of for political / philosophical reasons? That kind of glitch during an ear piercing would be called a vasectomy.

[xenophon41]

That kind of glitch during an ear piercing would be called a vasectomy.

That's actually a pretty witty retort. Unfortunately, it misses the fact that the error was noted and corrected for prior to acceptance of the data. (This is why we the public know about the error, right?)

from your cited article:

“Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality- control measures prior to archiving the data,” the center said. “Although we believe that data prior to early January are reliable, we will conduct a full quality check.’’

<snip>

The center said real-time data on sea ice is always less reliable than archived numbers because full checks haven’t yet been carried out. Historical data is checked across other sources, it said.

(Bolding added.)

The surgical equivalent would be having the size of your tumor overestimated on xray analysis and later corrected by the MRI data.

[elucidator]

A good line, nonetheless. Not good enough to steal, but good.

[wevets]

More importantly, the correctibility of the figure reveals a concern for data that belies that old canards about some mythical conspiracy of scientists creating a global warming hoax or religion.

[RTFirefly]

Meanwhile, George Will's and the Washington Post's refusal to issue any sort of correction, or even to admit in the newspaper or on its website that a controversy exists about the accuracy of Will's column, reveals a total lack of concern for data on the part of both the columnist and the newspaper.

[Skald the Rhymer]

George Will is generally an idiot. Because some scientists were wrong about a climate prediction in the distant past, a consensus of all peer reviewed climate scientists forty years later must be wrong? I'll concede that George Will has the ability to write pretty, but his logic is no better than that of run of the mill conservatives: a collection of prejudices and fallacies. (And by prejudices I mean preconceived ideas, not racism. Although I will say that he is oddly obsessed with black people.)

May I have a cite for that last claim? I am not saying you are wrong, merely that I haven't read enough of Will to know for myself.