Kobayashi Maru has a great post up on Byrnes, too, and a few things occur to him:
) In much of the Islamic world (to put it mildly), a 15-year-old female would not have access to the kind of intellectual cultivation, encouragement or freedom this young woman obviously has.
2) This is an interesting illustration of the value that outsiders can bring to a problem that ‘officials’ and ‘experts’ are unable or unwilling to crack. The fresh eyes of the uncredentialed, unbiased and marginalized often hold the key to new insights in science–the ultimate meritocracy. So it has been throughout history. The Internet gives legs to that dynamic. The freedoms of liberal (old meaning) Western Democracies give it staying power.
[...]
Bottom line: we don’t, can’t and shouldn’t attempt to control the climate. We should listen more carefully to fresh voices like Kristen Byrnes who are trying to understand it and who don’t (yet) have to feed at the official scientific and academic funding troughs with the biases they inevitably introduce.UPDATE I: I just ran across this well-informed analysis of the IPCC preliminary report from a February post over at Error Theory (lots more detail in his post).
The Report acknowledges that indirect solar effects are the only candidate for powerful natural warming effects. Evidence that some kind of powerful indirect solar effects exist is acknowledged. But indirect solar effects are then omitted from both the computer models that are discussed, and from the conclusions that are drawn based upon the computer models. The result is the classic problem of the omitted variable. Warming effects get misattributed to the greenhouse/anthropogenic effects that ARE included in the model. Thus the main conclusion of the Report is based entirely on elementary errors of logic and statistics. [emphasis added]
In other words: it’s the sun, stupid.
Queen Nan, btw, has declared decisively, global warming IS manmade and it’s not Greenland’s fault. It’s ours, of course. She offers no science behind that, btw. But she is the queen.
In other news, thus far no word on whether Al Gore – who will brook neither dissent or debate on his great religion and profit-making scheme, will talk it over with this 15 year old girl.
Thanks for the plug. Love the new look. Since you filed this under free speech, your readers might be interested in a breathtaking story by your fellow PJMedia writer Solomonia about the Islamic Society of Boston. (Hint: it’s implications extend well beyond that fair city). My short take: Gore’s climate jihad steals real resources and attention rom a far more potent one mestaticizing in our own backyard (almost literally in my case).
Fresh off the newsfeed: Argentina Rations Gas to Companies, Chile Amid Cold: “Argentina rationed electricity to companies and severed natural gas supplies to Chile as a cold wave prompted record demand for electricity in South America’s second-largest economy.
“The temperature in many parts of Argentina fell below freezing yesterday, pushing electricity demand to a record 18,300 megawatts, according to the country’s energy regulator. Argentina cut shipments of gas to Chile to meet the surge in demand, forcing their neighbor to rely on residual gas in the pipeline.”
And it’s not even winter yet.
I found this speech by the Vatican’s representative at the United Nations to be a helpful, balanced perspective: http://www.ncrlc.com/Apostolic_Nuncio.html
He is open to scientists who take divergent views on climate change (with a jab at Gore) but maintains that we cannot ignore the scientific consensus that human activity has contributed to climate change:
“Let me take the risk of sounding terribly politically incorrect. I prefer to speak of inescapable reality –with a direct reference to factual evidence, to what we can daily observe, ascertain and experience through our own five senses- than speaking of an inconvenient truth, as it is fashionable today.
“Truth is often used, in this context, as a club to give a cudgeling to those who hold different or diametrically opposed, scientific conclusions. And we do hear respectable scientists and research laboratories come to different conclusions on the same phenomena. Their reports need to be read with a well-informed and critical mind in order to take stock from and raise awareness about this problem.
“Beyond all political dust clouds whipped up by the soon-to-be-released report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there is no doubt that the latest assessments have established a strong link between human activity and climate change.”
Thank you, Tim. Let me disabuse you of the notion that I am a Catholic who lives and breathes by every pronouncement of the Vatican, the curia, the apostolic nuncio, etc…any one of whom can often be mistaken for “the pope” but none of whom are…and even the pope isn’t infallible unless he’s speaking ex cathedra, which he hasn’t done in…150 years or so, I think. Could be wrong, there!
I actually think, particularly in light of this new study and for scores of other reasons, that Pope Paul VI should have written Humanae Vitae ex cathedra, but that’s another subject.
In this case, the Vatican’s diplomat was very diplomatic and played both sides, and that was probably wise…but increasingly we are seeing scientists publicly dissent from the “manmade” bit, and scientifically, there has never been consensus. There hasn’t even been empirical proof. Moreover, Al Gore has given good reason for the raised eyebrows you’ll find around here – between refusing to debate Lomborg, lecturing the press that they should not report on dissent, and basically acting like he’s the only reasonable person on earth, (and only answering prescreened questions) all while heading a company set to make billions on “carbon offsets” while encouraging activity that could have a deleterious effect on our economy for centuries.
I love my faith…but human’s have always brought all of their human faults and foibles into the equation…this fellow convinces me of nothing more than the unsurprising truth that the Vatican is as capable of political speech as any other body.
I’m curious why you’re inclined to go with Lomborg and the relatively few skeptics rather than the large majority of scientific opinion? Is it because you’ve studied the science yourself in depth? For instance, have you studied atmospheric chemistry, etc.? (If not, wouldn’t you run the risk of getting a skewed perspective if you primarily only read the arguments of the skeptics without having the background knowledge to know whether their critiques make sense or not?) Or is it because you just trust one group more than the other?
(For instance, I don’t think anything about the behavior of Al Gore should be influencing whether or not you think climate change is caused to some extent by humans. People on the other side have the same suspicions about the motivations and truthfulness of the skeptics.)
Here’s a test. What would it take to convince you that human activity was contributing to global warming?
Empirical evidence (not computer models) based on normal scientific theory with a hypothesis, experimentation and conclusion – which take into account precipitation and water vapor. I’m no more a climatologist than Al Gore but I do know that precipitation and water vapor are essentially the “filters” of the planet and therefore a model that does not take them into effect cannot give a real calculation of what effect CO2 has on the planet; I’d like to see acknowledgment that other planets are warming, and acknowledgment that twenty years ago we were going to be in a “ice age” by now, and that the “movement” keeps changing the estimate on how long the planet has to survive, seemingly based on nothing more than polls. Last I heard, we now have “thirty” years. But if we buy carbon offsets, yadda yadda. I’d like to see acknowledgment that there is credible dissent, rather than the kneejerk move to throw a dissenter into disrepute.
See, what bothers me – aside from Al Gore’s clear intention to profit from his hysteria-inducing prophecies (and in that sense – and in the fact that Gore absolutely refuses to debate the issue with a credible dissenter and tries to manipulate the press, YES, absolutely his behavior must then be considered, otherwise we’re just fools) – is the heavy-handed fascism that is accompanying all of this. “You weather men better not express doubt about this, or you lose your jobs.” When something is being sold with an iron fist, I generally do not buy it.
It bothers me because if this was such a “crisis” then Al Gore would not be NOT acknowledging the very good and helpful things Bush has done, from his own home to the pacific rim accord you probably don’t know about (because it’s not reported)…he’d be applauding Bush’s efforts as a way of encouraging us distrustful conservatives…as I’ve said before, a real emergency appreciates the help of all hands and does not ask the political persuasion of the participant. That has proved to be untrue here, so for me the proof is in the playing of politics. I think you’d agree that if this crisis were the monumental thing we’re told it is, “all hands on deck,” and not “ignore what Bush is doing; he’s a conservative,” would be the order of the day. And too, if it were a “crisis” there might be some consistency to the narrative.
Today I will NOT have time to engage in these long responses. I encourage you to look in my archives under “hoo-hah.” I’ve said all of this and more, there.
Tim, when you can produce a model that takes into account not only the temperature rise on Earth, but the temperature increases on Mars and Neptune by the same order of magnitude over the same time period (no cars there), we can then talk about the cost benefit analysis. Of course, it would be a powerful argument if our knowledge of climate was accurate enough to predict the weather reliably.
Here’s a site you can use to test your ideas and make sure your understand the other side: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/222712/69
It still seems like your position rests primarily on pointing out the suspicious behavior of the proponents. Did you know that socialist economists were harrassed and berated during the most of last century in the U.S. and dismissed by the economics profession? Does that mean that mainstream market economics is wrong? Probably not. If you look at the history of science, you’ll see that there are always skeptics of the scientific consensus that are ridiculed by the majority. Sometimes they end up being right (the few geniuses we hear about in history) but most of the time they’re wrong (the ones that are forgotten). I’d just be careful about basing your beliefs on whether an issue is politicized or the skeptics are not treated with sufficient respect, etc. Everything is made into a partisan issue! We know that.
No, there’s no way around the necessity of considering the evidence on our own as well as we are able. But this presupposes that we don’t content ourselves with gathering up arguments that support our view (especially if they are outside the scientific consensus) without giving due time to checking whether the arguments really make sense. On the contrary, if we are serious about getting to the truth, we should probably spend more time reading the arguments of people who disagree with us to make sure we’re not just avoiding things we don’t want to hear. (That’s why I’m here
Thank you Tim. Believe me, I understand where the “other side” is coming from – you should see my email! I’ve been to gristmill too. If I seem too inclined to watch behavior in making my judgements, well, that’s because I know that behavior tells us a great deal – it speaks volumes over rhetoric. You seem equally inclined to ignore behavior. So maybe neither of us knows everything. On this issue I’d say I’ve read as much as most bloggers and commentors on either “side” and that my understanding is equal to most layperson’s understanding, and my judgment – and it’s unlikely to change without serious science behind it – is that we’re being sold a bill of goods.
Dear Anchoress,
You know, when you put it that way, of course I agree that we need to consider people’s behavior when deciding whether to believe what they say. Yet, even Jesus said of the Pharisees: listen to what they say, but do not follow their example.
But my point is really that there’s a difference between taking into account behavior when evaluating a particular person’s words and evaluating behavior when choosing sides on an issue. I think it’s important to realize that either side of any issue is always going to have some really unfortunate representatives. So we pro-lifers have the clinic-bombers. We Catholics have the executors of the Inquisition. We Americans have the unfortunate souls who carried out Abu Ghraib. In each case, people on the other side can point to those particular behaviors and dismiss us out of hand–but of course that doesn’t make any sense. In the same way, it doesn’t make sense to focus on the particularly obnoxious or condenscending or elusive proponents of the positions we disagree with, as if the fact that there exist poor representatives of an idea mean it is wrong. Instead, we should seek out the most reasonable, the most persuasive proponents and consider what they have to say. Since we want nothing but to get to the truth, we have nothing to fear and everything to gain by doing this.
The thing that makes this approach so difficult is that it’s often the most obnoxious folks who get all the attention! We have to accept that it will take time and effort to find better sources, I think..
Since you’ve come back to the idea that “serious science” will be necessary to change your view, I want to briefly comment on your earlier description of what kind of evidence you would need: “Empirical evidence (not computer models) based on normal scientific theory with a hypothesis, experimentation and conclusion – which take into account precipitation and water vapor.”
Direct experimentation is not possible with atmospheric science, for obvious reasons. Does this mean you will never accept the conclusions of atmospheric science?
Of course, we can do experiments on a smaller scale–that is how we can make precise statements about the greenhouse effects of different gases, etc. We can see their effects directly in a laboratory setting.
I don’t know enough to know whether there’s something to this issue of basic factors being left out of models. But I just feel that because climate science must be, by nature, indirect, it’s unfair to dismiss it because the reasoning and models must be complex and indirect. The thing is that there are thousands of scientists who have spent years and years in study looking at all angles of this. I guess, personally, I suspect they would jump on any mistake as obvious as leaving such and such out of a model, if the results depended on that.
Thank you for indulging me. (: This has been a pleasant conversation.
Thank you, Tim. I don’t often get to play in the comments section, but when I do I try to keep it pleasant. Fortunately for me most of my commenters are pretty pleasant people to start with.
As to empirical evidence, yes it would be difficult but not – I think – impossible to create a smaller-scale experiment to test out these theories of man’s contribution to global warming in ways that might be a bit more convincing than the current models that leave out the extremely important precipitation factor.
I think I’ve pretty much exhausted this topic for now…my bottom line – a man with – if not dubious, then at least suspicious – motives is trying to get the world to bow to a vision and comply with recommendations that could destroy economies (and thus – it goes without saying – whole lives)…based on no real science at all, and to accomplish this he is offering evidence which he refuses to debate and he is telling the press not to report on dissenting views. Those who support him are calling “heresy” on those who doubt, and suggesting that dissenters should lose their jobs.
No…It just doesn’t pass my smell test!
I recommend http://www.vox-nova.com/2007/06/global-warming-not-partisan-issue-part.html
I really like her approach so far (only part one is posted at the time of this comment)–actually delving into the science and the empirical evidence.