Snowstorm Cancels WRM Talk on Global Warming
show comments
  • Sure, the planet’s getting warmer; we’ve been warming gradually since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850*. The problem is that the alarmists’ pet theory, that Man is the culprit, just doesn’t hold water.

    Meanwhile, I suggest a hot spiced rum to get you through the latest episode of climate change. That warming can get awfully cold. 🙂

    *(Though that may be coming to an end, at least briefly, if the current lack of sunspot activity means anything.)

  • Toni

    “I note that the scientific consensus that the planet is in fact getting warmer continues to strengthen…”

    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

    —–

    Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

    —–

    When did “skeptic” become a dirty word in science?

    —–

    Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?

    Let’s think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

    —–

    The rest at http://web.archive.org/web/20080608164058/www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

  • peter38a

    Dr. Mead, I have some little interest in Clausewitz. Is there any way I might electronically eavesdrop on that discussion?

  • Ray Voss
  • Gary Hemminger

    I would be careful about too easily linking to The Economist and other mainstream press about global warming. I have been reading The Economist for years, but they swallowed the global warming pill years ago. The latest article you point to from the Berkeley (I was a grad there) BEST team that claims unmistakable global warming is already being refuted by one of the authors… Here is the article…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

  • John McIntyre

    Hi,
    Thanks for this item. Re: the link to the BEST study as evidence for continued global warming: Did you see this?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

    Dr. Curry says, among other things, that been no increase in world temperatures “since end of the Nineties.” That’s something other scientists, notably Phillip Jones of Climategate fame, have said.

    Maybe Bard College could referee a debate between Profs Muller and Curry and get to the bottom of the issue.

    Stay warm

  • Toni

    FIRST, to whoever screens these posts, what follows is a serious, cogent response regarding global warming. I previously tried to post but it never appeared. If you don’t post it, please email me to explain why, so I understand the problem.

    Prof. Mead asserts that “the scientific consensus that the planet is in fact getting warmer continues to strengthen…” The notion of “consensus science” is a pernicious hoax. Nobody explained why better than MD Michael Crichton in his 2003 speech at CalTech “Aliens Cause Global Warming.”

    Crichton traces the rise of pseudoscience put to political use back to the birth of SETI — specifically, to the 1960 “Drake equation” that purported to estimate the number of Milky Way planets with intelligent life which communicates signals SETI could detect.

    Crichton concludes, “Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion.”

    He goes on to describe decades of pseudoscience up to and including global warming. He addresses “consensus science” in this passage:

    “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

    “Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

    Later, Crichton asks, “When did “skeptic” become a dirty word in science?”

    The speech is a lucidly argued condemnation of non-science used to push political goals, including global warming. It’s available here
    http://web.archive.org/web/20080608164058/www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

    In 2005, the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works elicited Crichton’s testimony on the proper conduct of science related to public policy. Independent verification of research is crucial. His testimony is here
    http://web.archive.org/web/20080513233144/www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-senatetestimony.html

  • The global warming myth is another attempt to rescue socialism from failure. All previous attempts have failed. What will the next rationalization be?

  • SLEcoman

    From the BEST report

    “Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.”

    For a little insight into the Economist’s ‘journalism’, see.

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/comment-on-the-article-in-the-economist-on-rich-mullers-data-analysis/

    Looks like to me that the most charitable take on the Economist story is that the Economist got ‘manipulated’ (in the same sense that a streetwalker gets ‘manipulated’ into performing sex in exchange for money) into supporting AGW spin. More realistically, it’s yet another example how MSM is no longer performing its function of informing the public.

  • SLEcoman

    Dr. Muller has been caught misrepresenting his own work. Sunday October 30, Dr. Muller said on BBC 4 Today
    “In our data, which is only on the land we see no evidence of [global warming] having slowed down.”

    which contradicts BEST’s own data

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100114292/lying-cheating-climate-scientists-caught-lying-cheating-again/

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.