Climate Change – The Arrogance of Skepticism

It seems as if everyone is making up their own minds about climate change these days. I’ve lost count of the number of times someone comes up with facts “disproving” any number of concepts – either the climate is not changing, or else the change isn’t caused by humans. Or it is caused by humans, but it’s not significant. Or it is significant, but it doesn’t matter cause more CO2 is good for the planet.

Often these people take a certain pride in defiantly stating that they’ve “made up their own minds” and haven’t bought in to the corporate scam/misinformation campaign that everyone else has fallen for. And while I don’t disagree about the importance of using one’s mind, this sort of Ayn Randish “Oh I’m such a stud independent person” mindset is faintly nauseating. Because in plain fact, very often “finding out the facts for yourself” and making up your own mind isn’t a good idea. It fact, it’s downright foolish.

"Making up your own mind" isn't a luxury we can afford
"Making up your own mind" isn't a luxury we can afford

We live in an age of specialization. Gone are the days of Gauss when a single person could know everything about every field of scientific and mathematic endeavor. Even the most common devices today – like cell phones – are so mind bogglingly complex, that I can state with confidence there’s not a single person on earth who knows everything about how they work, including the chip design, electronics and the software stacks and protocols they implement.

And yet none of us hesitate for even a moment before entrusting our lives to an airplane – the workings of which are pretty much mysterious to most of us. We can use fancy words like “aerodynamics” to pretend that we know something, but we don’t. We don’t know the first thing about aircrafts. We don’t stop to “make up our own mind” about it.

I graduated from St. Stephen’s with a B.Sc (G) in physics. I can confidently state that my understanding of the subject is superior to the vast majority of humanity. But even I can’t prove something like the General Theory of Relativity. The mathematics is too complex for me. And yet every educated person knows about this famous theory (some even know what it means!) and people don’t doubt it’s validity or usefulness. If I were to bet my life on the theory being accurate or inaccurate, I would choose the former without a moment’s hesitation. So would everyone else. How come? Why doesn’t everyone try and “make up their own minds” about it?

I’ve played chess for a long time and a few years back, I achieved an ELO rating of around 2000-2100. It’s quite a decent rating, but not master level. Many times I’ve tried to follow a game between Grandmasters and have been totally perplexed as to why a particular move was played. And yet in the post analysis, most GMs will agree that a certain move is the correct one though for the life of me I can’t figure out why. But I believe them! I realize my limitations. I don’t go around making a fool of myself by saying “But if you do that, you’re putting your queen in danger!” I have enough intelligence to know that they would see what I see – and much more. I don’t try and “find out the truth” for myself. Not unless I spend many more years forging my skills and proving myself in battle.

There are many more examples I could give where it makes infinitely more sense to listen to competent minds instead of torturing oneself by trying to figure out the truth – with a very high probability that you’ll reach a wrong conclusion anyway. This doesn’t mean you’re giving up your intelligence or sacrificing your integrity. Quite the contrary. It means you’re using all facets of your intelligence to draw conclusions which a brute force method could never reach. It means you use your powers of observation to know your limitations and choose which battles to fight. It’s a more efficient way of gathering knowledge with a higher chance of success.

But when it comes to Climate Change, suddenly everyone wants to “make up their own mind.” And facts are there in plenty to pick and choose from – enough to support any given view! Never mind that 98% of the most active scientists in the field accept the evidence for human induced climate change. These scientists are from all over the world, from multi disciplinary backgrounds, and working for different organizations and governments. To say it’s unlikey they’re all wrong is an understatement. A skeptic will have to somehow convince me that they’ve all been deceived and that their analysis from a layman’s point of view is more valid.

Good luck with that. So let’s just stop this nonsense shall we? Enough is enough. It’s time for people to stop trying to figure out the truth of climate change for themselves and use their intelligence in a more creative manner. It’s time to use other people’s knowledge to fill the gaps in one’s own. It’s time to stop trying to reinvent the wheel. Because it’s counterproductive, and a waste of my time.

What do you think of this post?
  • Agree (0)
  • Don't Agree but Interesting (0)
  • You're an asshole (0)

60 thoughts on “Climate Change – The Arrogance of Skepticism”

  1. So what 98% (that is strongly disputed) scientists are alleged to support anthropogenic global warming. However, as Einstein said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

    Climate is always changing but unfortunately global warmist make it sound it is changing by the minute. Climate skeptics do not dispute the globe is warming but they also accept the globe is cooling. The believe in natural cycles. There are cycles within cycles all driven by the sun. And if since 1998 there is no statistical significant warming is because sunspots are declining and the present solar 24 cycle is no different.

    Remember the UN is the group that told the world in 1970 that we had widespread Global Cooling which would cause massive ecological devastation. In fact U Thant the Secretary General in 1970 said we had, “perhaps 10 years left” before humanity needed to reorder society to combat global cooling. Newsweek in 1975 chimed in with, “The scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality” [Newsweek, 1975, April 28, “The Cooling World”] Global Cooling was going to get us.

    It is good that you admit that despite a BSc (Physics) you do not understand basic concepts of physics. Do a refresher course and your eyes will open! Visit : http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.com

    Reply

    • In reply to Rajan

      My physics course was a General course Rajan (note the "G" in front of the degree.) The General theory of relativity wasn't taught formally.

      You're welcome to discuss points if you wish. You are not welcome to insinuate personal attributes. That's an ad hominem argument and is very poor reasoning technique.

      Why do you find evidence that the 98% figure is disputed – That too strongly? Is it a feeling of yours? Maybe I'm missing something here. Could you tell me why I should believe your analysis and not those of most of the scientists?

      Reply

      • In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park

        Well your title of this posting itself is provocative – which could be also considered an ad hominem attack. Consensus science is a bogus science. Unless you are skeptical, you cannot be a scientist. Even the Great Einstein was proved wrong by quantum physics. All these greats became great only because they questioned the prevailing paradigm or consensus science. Otherwise we would be still subscribing to the world is flat "consensus" science.

        Well there are several published papers disputing this false consensus e.g. Mike Hulme – a lead IPCC author himself. Read here http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2010/0….

        The IPCC concluded that the solar forcing was inconsequential by the consensus of just one individual, who quoted her own papers! Take another example – Christopher Landsea who is considered as one of the top experts in hurricanes. He was the lead author on hurricanes chapter for IPCC AR4, He quit citing that the IPCC process being highly politicized and weak on sound data". Along with him, Dr William Gray and some others disagreed with the IPCC though they were part of the team authoring the IPCC 2007 report on Cyclones. None of their objections found a place in the report. There are several other IPCC reviewers and lead authors who on record questioning the so-called consensus. A former Chair of the IPCC accused them of gross exaggeration scenarios. Authors of studies cited by the IPCC to support their claims have come on record to protest that the IPCC misrepresented their studies!

        The InterAcademy Council enquiry on IPCC concluded that the IPCC made alot of claims with high confidence levels when in reality they had little or no evidence for it. The enquiry advised IPCC to keep out of politics and concentrate on science! This is an inquiry initiated jointly by the UN & IPCC. The IPCC itself is getting re-structured based on the recommendations of this report. This includes greater representation of divergent views – the IPCC till then suppressed all opposing views.

        I am sorry Bhagwad – you may have a passing interest in climate change and so did I till a year back. I have been in the NGO/humanitarian sector for last 30 years. As a consultant, I have undertaken studies and evaluation studies for all major NGOs, bi-lateral and multi-lateral agencies including the UN. Though climate change is not one of my specialties, I supported the network as I thought it was the political correct thing to do. In one of these studies I had to go to a tribal district in MP last September and I discovered mass starvation a la sub-Sahara.I was greatly moved. I was told it was due to global warming induced drought. That is when I started my research thinking that this global warming is a terrible thing but to my horror found the science behind global warming is junk science. For example NGOs have been claiming that the arctic sea-ice would lead to sea rise. Could they? If so, this would be a violation of Archimedes law of displacement. More over arctic sea-ice represents just 5% of the global sea ice – the Antarctic has most of them. If you add both, then there is no global net loss in sea ice. They called CO2 a pollutant – if you eliminate CO2 you eliminate life itself. And so I discovered by and by that the whole theory was a scientific sham.

        This was when I was compelled to write a blog.

        Reply

      • In reply to Rajan Alexander

        Thanks for your reply Rajan. Regarding scientific consensus, there have been many times when the consensus has been wrong. No doubt about that. But in 95% of the cases the consensus has been right. If I had a choice to either follow the consensus or disagree with it, I would choose the consensus every time since I would rather be right 95% of the time instead of just 5% of the time.

        Moreover, since your background isn't in science, I'm unable to accept you as an authority no matter how many facts you give me here because of two things:

        1. I don't have a guarantee that you know all the facts instead of just a few
        2. I don't have a guarantee that you're interpreting them correctly. Only a qualified scientist can do that.

        But it isn't all that simple. For example, you refer to Archimedes law and how the sea levels can't rise up. That's true only if all the melting ice was free floating. But ice blocks such as glaciers etc don't fit that category.

        So be careful about the science you use – it's easy to sound scientific and actually be completely wrong. I'm sorry Rajan – you're not a scientist, so you don't get to vote on this issue.

        Reply

      • In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park

        Bhagwad my primary degree is Natural Science and post graduate in both Business Administration and Social Work. It means I did science until graduation. It practically means there is very little that separate us by way of qualifications in science. My specialization is livelihoods and I have practically grass-root implementation of many organic

        You have no guarantees anything in life. A scientist do not go by perceptions but by observed data.

        I am no authority yes and I do not pretend to be a climatologist. But my posts of La Nina and Leh Cloudburst got many repeated hits from leading climate research institutions in the world and many corresponded with me offline. My posting on critiquing the study that attributed falling rice yields due to global warming similarly attracted the attentions of a whole range of universities within the country and outside. So I must be saying at least something sensible. I correspond to a few leading renowned climate skeptic scientists regularly

        Unfortunately NGOs and IPCC refers to free float ice. Most of Arctic ice unlike antarctic are not land base. They go miles deep into the sea and more over at a min temp of -20C. If the melting point of ice is 0C – then I am sure you can imagine how much the earth should heat up for the arctic to melt completely though there are peer reviewed studies that suggest the earth was so warm millions of years, the arctic was ice free. Since people with science background gets confused this is why WUWT – the most popular science blog in the world and incidentally climate skeptic started to track sea ice.

        Reply

      • In reply to Rajan Alexander

        Thanks for the detailed reply Rajan. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you two questions:

        1. Have you spoken to a climate researcher about this data and found out what he/she has to say about it? Do they agree with your logic, or do they wish to add something more?

        2. Why don't you publish your findings in a peer reviewed science journal? Anyone is welcome to do that if their studies are rigorous. There's no point in trying to convince me – I'm neither qualified nor important enough to matter. If you really have something important to get across (as you clearly do), then such a journal will be exactly what you're looking for.

        Ultimately, we're talking about scientists here. Any conflicting data is best handled within the science community. Just like if you find a flaw in aerodynamics, you talk to those who are qualified to discuss it. If your logic is rigorous, you will be heard and listened to.

        Also, I just checked the IPCC reports. There are numerous mentions of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Moreover, the consequences of floating ice melting goes way beyond mere sea level rise. We have to consider the decreased reflectivity of the earth's surface and the change in ocean currents as well.

        Like I said, these things are best left to those who have experience dealing with them. I might be talking utter nonsense without knowing it. But I have the knowledge of my limitations, so I try not to be arrogant and say "I know what is happening", because I don't. I listen to those whose job it is to know.

        Reply

      • In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park

        Yes that is the line of the discussion – with other climate researchers.

        You checked with IPCC Report? The UN-IPCC review concluded that they made too many mistakes, they made apocalyptic claims without evidence and they should focus on science instead of politics. The result is a strong call for the head of Pachauri and the IPCC itself is going to be heavily restructured.

        Consequences of floating ice melting goes way beyond mere sea level rise.- but that is true only if it goes past tipping point. But if you care to check sea ice data, I am sure you will be convinced that there is no room to be alarmed. A year ago, the then outgoing boss of Greenpeace in BBC's hard talk admitted the possibility of Arctic ice including Greenland is bleak viz. that they exaggerated.

        I am blogging, not doing any study. I totally agree with that we need to ensure that scientist should be left to themselves to decide scientific issues. Why then is the IPCC panel of reviewers loaded against scientists? Throw out the NGOs, journalists, economists, politicians etc.

        The IPCC's foundation graph was the hockey stick graph – the people who busted them were statisticians – the first pair had to fight long years to get the data from the IPCC and even had to resort to right to information petitions. But theirs was not peer reviewed. Recently a pair used the same method and data and could not replicate the same results as found by IPCC. The study was peer reviewed and falsifies the hockey stick graph.

        The peer review of IPCC has become a joke. First they used 1,500 documents which were not but used to come out with apocalyptic findings – the melting of Himalayan Glaciers were one of these. Second, there just do not allow any dissenting views and do not even select sceptics – this was not only pointed out by the review but IPCC has made their panel more broad based for AR5.

        Reply

      • In reply to Rajan Alexander

        It's true that there have been mistakes. But investigations into claims of wrong doing have repeatedly exonerated the scientists involved.

        What you're saying sounds like a big conspiracy coordinated all over the world from every government and from every branch of science. Such a claim requires extraordinary evidence, not merely mistakes. Do you have any proof that that reviewers are loaded against scientists? Proof that will stand up to close scrutiny?

        But mind you, my post isn't about the IPCC. The study I quoted polled individual scientists and not the IPCC in general. I'm talking only about them here. 98% of them agree with the evidence, so why should I disbelieve so many reputable scientists?

        If you say you're a blogger and not doing any study then you must not claim that you have the answers. The correct thing to say would be "It looks to me as if there are some problems, but all the scientists must also be aware of what I see – so let me first assume that they are right."

        Reply

      • In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park

        Not true. The organizational review of IPCC was scathing. See Hindu http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/articl… – Hindu is supposed to be global warmist in editorial policy. The next IPCC meeting in Korea next month is planned to accept or reject the findings. The fate of Pachauri is also to be decided then though I feel he should continue.

        The Tories have re-opened the CRU enquiry by a parliamentary committee.Once the democrats lose their Congress/Senate majorities in November, you can expect a spate of inquiries by both these bodies in the US. Once this happens, the prospect of a new treaty is zero and that is why the UN is trying to spin the Kyoto Protocol will continue pass 2012.

        Poll – it all depends on the sampling and how the questions are asked and who does it. If you have done research or market research you will have a better understanding. Science I reiterate is not having the maximum people putting their hands up. It is decided by data which either validates or falsifies a hypothesis.

        No one has all the answers – that's arrogance. But we can have knowledge. This can be gained by research though my intention is not for peer review purpose. My blogging is part-time – at the most once a week and no more. This I do this by sacrificing my weekends and the rest of the time earn my living. I blog with the NGO and Indian audience but these are perhaps only 1/3 of my hits. I get hits all over the world, with the exception of Latin America though this is showing signs that it is picking up.

        What motivates me? We are facing the next 25-30 years of cooling and strategies are formulated on the assumption of warming. If the sunspot activity does not pick up and/or we have a major volcanic eruption, it can catapult the world to another ice age, which is much worse A study of history shows that mankind flourished during warmth and cooling caused create hardship, crop failures, overthrow of governments & empires etc.

        Reply

      • In reply to Rajan Alexander

        "Not true" – Which statement of mine are you referring to?

        Yes – science is decided by data. And since the issue is science, non scientists don't get to decide what that data means.

        You say you're a part time blogger. You agree that your information is less accurate than scientists. Then why are you arguing with them? Don't you think they know the facts better than you do?

        Anyone can challenge a scientific theory. But to be taken seriously you have to discuss it in a scientific forum with other scientists. Otherwise you can't expect anyone to listen to you.

        Reply

      • In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park

        Not true – context investigations into claims of wrong doing have repeatedly exonerated the scientists involved.

        My information is from scientific studies which is very different those that I personally generate. You make scientists a monolithic entity which they are not. The "scientists" within IPCC is only a fraction of the total in the world. If you delve further climatologists are a minority in the panel of IPCC.I am in agreement with skeptic scientists and they are a lot of them. I differ from scientists advocating warming.

        My blog is not designed to target scientists – it is target layman, NGOs though by coincidence I get scientific institutions hits. If Pachuari, Al Gore, Greenpeace, Oxfam can blog on climate, why can't I, it is a free country isn't it?? I have a simple indicator for relevance – the number of hits on my blog. That is enough to know the growth of the relevance of my blog! The return visits will indicate whether they take me seriousily. I forgot to tell you, I am a Monitoring & Evaluation specialist!

        Reply

      • In reply to Rajan Alexander

        I've just checked the site. There's nothing special about it. It has a PR of 2 – even my blog is more than that. It has just 45 RSS subscribers. I have more than double that.

        Moreover, even if it was popular it doesn't matter if it's not a scientific journal. You say it's run by climatologists – what are their names and in which journals have they been published, and do you have proof that they're running it?

        Reply

      • In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park

        Well the have over 150,000 hits. These are weatherman, I do not have their CVs. The quality of discussion and content certainly points that it is more of a technical nature than your blog is.

        Will on this subject, how come IPCC has not made a single prediction that has come true? The missed Russian heatwave and Pakistan Floods – this was predicted by Piers Corbyn weeks in advance who also predicted when they will abate. He hit the bulls-eye.

        What kinda of science is it with no predictive value?

        Reply

      • In reply to Rajan Alexander

        Rajan, if you don't have their CVs, you can't say that they're scientists now can you? You say they're weathermen. I don't care about weathermen – they're not qualified to talk about climate science.

        As far as prediction goes, the predictions are over a period of 50 years or more. The things you're talking about are weather and not climate.

        Reply

      • In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park

        By the content of your blog I know you are not. Similarly when I read their content I know and they did mention they were part of IMD – retired now.

        I suppose you haven't read Pachauri's interview in Time of India – he said being highly complex and chaotic system, no prediction is possible! That's in my latest post.

        Reply

      • In reply to Rajan Alexander

        Look, it's easy to sound scientific with mumbo jumbo. I don't care about how bloggers sound. Let me see a study in some reputed journals by a large number of scientists and only then will I believe it.

        This is not going anywhere. I'm repeating myself over and over again that unless lots of scientists come out in the open and refute current theories I'm not going to waste my time listening to anyone else.

        Let's stop this right here. It's gone far enough and I'm tired of having to say the same thing again and again. If you want to do your own research, that's fine. But don't expect others to listen to you.

        Reply

      • In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park

        Wrong again. You are not a scientist. Are you confessing that you need not have posted an article on climate change?We all exist that's why we are having this discussion. What's the use of being a scientist when you cannot predict and others can? Besides I really do not know their backgrounds as it was they who invited me write in their blog. I have neither met them nor is this important as my consideration is only they are giving me a platform. But what I have seen, they certainly know what they are talking about.

        I have worked with farmer's and they can tell months in advance whether they would be rains or drought by simply having a particular tree as an indicator. If their flowers bloom or not bloom gives them the clue. Traditional farmers have given a name for each week of the monsoon rainfall and accordingly they decide what to plant.

        Tribals in Andamans & Mokens (Sea-Pirates) the last can be found from Burma right down to Indonesia, knew the Tsunami was coming and can predict natural disasters more accurately than any climatologist around today.

        Bhagwad, from the content of your blog, you have your heart in the right place.

        Reply

      • In reply to Rajan Alexander

        Rajan, getting hits on your blog is meaningless. Glenn Beck is very popular in the US, but he's a complete idiot. Hitler had a lot of fans, but he was insane. This is the first time I'm hearing of a blog claiming to be accurate because it gets a lot of hits.

        That is not a logical argument at all. If you claim you're a scientific person, then statements like the ones you just made don't show you in a very good light. So let's not talk about the number of hits you get.

        You say there are a lot of skeptics. Do you have a percentage of what "lots" means? 2%? 3%? Again, I'm not talking about the IPCC here and I don't want to either. I'm talking about 1372 most respected scientists in the field.

        Charges against scientists have been repeatedly thrown out. You just hear the initial noise and don't follow up. The famous "Climate gate" died with a whimper and led to one scientist suing a newspaper for printing false statements.

        Inquiries have repeatedly exonerated the scientists involved.

        Reply

      • In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park

        Bhagwad I reiterate hits are indicators of relevance though you are right to question whether the kind of support (relevance) Hitler had is actually something socially desirable.

        Your tactics are however typically warmist who often call us "deniers" a derogatory term. But let me tell you being a skeptic is not a very hip or popular thing to do. It is not very easy as I have taken on some of my own clients, a few who I have a long andd pleasant association. It has icost me in business terms.

        I do not have any statistics though I know – the entire North America and Europe have turned skeptic. Warmist are reduced to a minority even in Green Germany. All leading media in India and abroad has turned against global warming. NDTV who had a long association with Pachauri is keeping their distance from him. Pranab Roy really gave him a drilling in his last interview.

        In my own NGO fraternity I get feedback that more and more skepticism is growing though they may not overtly raise their voices.

        I reiterate

        Reply

      • In reply to Rajan Alexander

        Rajan, I have never once called you a "denier." By calling me a "warmist", it's you who have started the name calling – (I'm hearing that term for the first time).

        It also doesn't matter if North America is skeptic (though it's not "entire" as you say and neither is Europe so badly affected.) That's a logical fallacy called "Argumentum ad Numerum" – meaning that something is true just because large numbers of people believe in it.

        Neither does it matter if the entire world turns skeptic. Who cares? The people who matter are those who are doing the actual research – namely the scientists. And they're the only ones worth listening to.

        The others dont' get to vote.

        Reply

      • In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park

        You right you never called me a denier but you insinuated it by bringing up Hitler!

        But makes you think only warmist scientist turn out research. In fact, their science is rather low key these days and it is the skeptical peer reviewed research that it is coming out with great velocity.

        The foundation graph of IPCC has been falisified by a peer reviewed study. There are hosts of the study but one study that is significant is that it showed CO2 feedback sensitivity over-estimated by IPCC – this too peer reviewed. http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/clima

        All the key tenets of global warming have been falsified by peer research!

        Reply

      • In reply to Rajan Alexander

        Rajan, again you say things with no proof. Of the top 1372 scientists, 98% agree with the evidence for Climate change. And you use words like "great velocity" to talk about skeptics? Where are your facts that show this?

        Show me even one reputed source that says key tenets of global warming have been refuted. Show me a link from the New York Times, the BBC, National Geographic, Nature, the Journal of Climate etc…these are reputable sources.

        Don't give me sources like the link you gave above which is blatantly skeptic even in its tone. That's not how scientists talk.

        Reply

      • In reply to Rajan Alexander

        See the link in the article as well as a follow up link in the comments. It was publicized by the New York Times and you can get all the details if you want from there.

        The study you sent me has been disputed and is surprisingly political in nature – I don't think you've actually read it. If you did you would not have sent it to me.

        Reply

      • In reply to Rajan Alexander

        Please stop commenting here. I asked you to find a link to the study in the post – the only link in the entire post – and you didn't bother to find it.

        It's clear you're not interested in an actual discussion but here only to make a point – and you refuse to listen to me when I tell you that I don't give a damn about the IPCC – so who are you talking to?

        Let's part ways politely.

        Reply

      • In reply to Rajan Alexander

        I am sorry about the link as I assumed it was related the hockeystick graph I found none. The guide was Stephen H. Schneider. So it confirms my worst fears that the study was cooked up.

        Schneider died of a heart attack a few months ago. But you be interested in his background. In the 70's – he was equally vocal warning the world of global cooling – the consequences similar to what he uttered later for global warming.

        In an interview to Discovery Magazine he is on record:

        ”To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”

        And this the poll guided by him that worked you up so much

        Reply

    • In reply to Rajan

      In the years leading up to 1970, available temperature data showed that there was a cooling trend…As a result, many scientists suggested that the Earth would plunge into a new ice-age in the next few centuries…This ice-age idea was reinforced by the knowledge that the smog or aerosols – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling (this theory assumes that uniform CO2 concentrations imply uniform heating)….But as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas (more aerosols are produced in the North) and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady prior to 1970…

      Even though the media was harping about a new ice-age in the 70’s, greater number of contradicting studies were being published during that period…These papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gases that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects…

      By 1980, the ice-age theory was put to bed because of the overwhelming evidence that global warming was actually occurring…So, why was the media harping about global cooling in the 1970’s when more studies predicted warming? Because it was more interesting…People didn’t want to believe they had a hand in climate change…

      It doesn’t matter what you believe in, but you can’t ignore the facts…
      Facts:
      – Ocean measurements, decreases in snow cover, reductions in Arctic sea ice, longer growing seasons, balloon measurements, boreholes and satellites all show results consistent with global warming
      – Globally, there is a warming trend of about 0.8C since 1900, more than half of which has occurred since 1979

      Reply

      • In reply to Sraboney

        I think you bring up an interesting point Sraboney. Which is that science is always changing – as it must in line with new evidence. Unfortunately, some use this to say that one can't trust scientists since they keep changing their tune. But that's the way humans work. We keep learning and keep getting better.

        Reply

      • In reply to Sraboney

        The fact that global cooling gave way to global warming is not necessarily that the science had changed. The other to interpretation is the prevalence of natural cycles.

        The period 1946-1977 was really cold and the solutions discussed then was spraying arctic ice with coal dust and even exploding it with nuclear bombs. Newsweek in April, 1975, published an article about a very different kind of disaster. citing "ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically," the magazine warned of an impending "drastic decline in food production." Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect "just about every nation on earth." Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling.

        The period 1905-1946 was again warming. We have global warming again 1977-98. How the media created hysteria over the last century alternating between cooling, warming, cooling, warming is well documented. I have not the link at the moment but I think I can find it.

        The cooling and warming cycles are highly correlated with changes in an oceanic phenomena called Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Whenever the PDO is warm, the world warms and when it cools, the world cools. The PDO alternates in these modes once every 25-30 years. In 2006, it turned cool. This is why prominent IPCC scientists Latif conceded that the next 30 years we are going to see cooling. We have enough indications that the La Nina would be strong, if not a monster. In either case, we should a very severe winter this year in India. :Last year, (official) death from cold waves was around 1,500. If we do not take steps, this figure can cross 10,000 this winter.

        Reply

  2. Sorry, but I do not agree with you.

    If a man comes to your door and tells you that he is a builder and that he can see problem with your roof that he could fix for you then when he climbs up to the roof he says that it is worse than he thought and he can mend it for a lot of money what do you say? Do you think, this man is a builder so he must be correct or do you think I must be careful because he might be trying to con me out of my money?

    Another example. If you have a car and you take it to a car salesman to part-exchange it for a new one do you accept the price that the salesman suggests without question because he is a car salesman and therefore knows a lot about cars? Or do you think, I need to know how much my car is really worth before I ask the salesman in case he will not offer me a good price?

    The 98%. I have seen a survey that resulted in 97% of scientists thinking that man had an influence on climate. The question asked amounted to: Does man have even the slightest influence on climate. 97% said they thought so. If they had asked: Does only man affect the climate the answer would have been 0%. The answer would also have been 0% if the question had been: Is all climate change caused by man?

    A more revealing question would have been: How much influence does man have on the climate? Or even: Give me a list of things that affect the climate?

    The original survey question was asked in such a way that it appears to confirm the consensus view. In fact, the 97% might have thought that man's effect was so small as to be insignificant or everyone of the 97% might have thought that man's influence on the climate was enormous. The survey question does not make it clear which answer, if either, was correct.

    Reply

    • In reply to Graphicconception

      Thanks for your careful response. I did some further research and found the details about the study. Here's the actual statement which 97-98% of the of 1372 top climate researchers agreed upon:

      "Anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature." I think that's a pretty comprehensive response that should leave no doubt in people's minds over what they were agreeing to.

      About the salespeople, I want to draw a distinction between scientists and salespeople here. If your contention is that allscientists tailor their research to obtain money, then we reach four conclusions – all of which are absurd, namely:

      1. Every research paper ever published is tainted by the publisher's desire to get money
      2. There has been a catastrophic failure in the peer review process at a systematic and endemic scale
      3. Every scientist, from every country, from every organization, from every branch of science is colluding to deceive the world for monetary gain – a conspiracy of epic proportions.
      4. Since many scientific bodies are also part the government itself, then governments are stealing from themselves all over the world.

      Moreover, what's the alternative? So many anti climate change studies have been funded by blatant corporate interests – oil and coal companies for example. What of their vested interests? They are much more in the sales business than scientists. If I had to choose between the two, I would trust a government over a corporation. At least a government has the stated aim of doing what's in the people's best interests. Remember the campaigns by the smoking lobby which advertised that smoking didn't cause lung cancer.

      Reply

  3. @Bhagwad

    I don't think Ayn Rand ever said that you should know everything and that you should not listen to experts. All she asked people to do is listen to reason.

    I used to be a firm supporter of the climate change argument because my reason told me, just like yours, that if the scientific community overwhelmingly accepts that climate change is real, it must be. I never sought to check it for myself because I believed in the integrity of the climate change science.

    But I had to change my opinion about their integrity after the climategate emails scandal. I am still not convinced that climate change is not real but I am now on my guard about anything the scientists tell us. Again, I am following my reasoning abilities and that tells me that if they could commit a little fraud, they could also possibly commit a greater fraud.

    So today, I am open to listening to the climate change skeptics and changing my opinion about this whole phenomenon if they have an irrefutable argument.

    Reply

    • In reply to Ashish Deodhar

      Ashish, the whole climategate issue was so overblown that I was stunned at the accusations flying around. People just leaped to conclusions without waiting to see if the charges were true or not. Since then investigation after investigation has exonerated the scientists involved.

      But the damage has been done. Scientists are very poor in PR and this has worked badly against them. Those who would benefit from the public not believing in climate change however are masters in the art of advertising – and this has made the problem worse.

      Reply

      • In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park

        Well I am an advertising professional myself :)

        Look all I am saying is that it's good to have scientific skeptics around. That's the only way science progresses. But yes I do think that this debate needs to remain within the scientific community and not enter the political domain.

        For the time being, we should listen to the overwhelmingly scientifically popular theory but keep ourselves open to other logical possibilities.

        Reply

  4. I play chess. I was college champion. But I disagree with the basis the climate change claims are being made. I am not a scientist. I am a CPA. I do not presume to know everything, even in the field of my specialization, but I do have intelligence to raise questions, questions that remain unanswered by scientists and these are:
    1. How can 350 ppm of CO2 cause the warming of 999,650 ppm of nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor and other elements in the atmosphere? What heat transfer mechanism would allow for the amplification of heat considering that the heat from the CO2 will have to contend with 21% of cool oxygen, and the water vapor that will at anytime precipitate and bring down with it the heat that it absorbed from the sun and from whatever heat that CO2 may have transferred to the water molecules? I do understand some of the laws of thermodynamics, and so I am able to ask these questions.
    2. Why is there no discussion over the loss of the forests due to human activity? Deforestation impacts upon the absorption side of the carbon cycle. Why are there no computations from the United Nations on how many hectares of forest will be needed to absorb the amount of CO2 emissions?
    3. Why is there no discussion over the acceleration of the hydrologic cycle as it pertains to its contribution to increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, and the deceleration that will result if we increase the area of forest cover and the extent of water vapor absorption? How much will water vapor contribute to atmospheric and ocean warming if its volume is increased in the atmosphere?
    4. Are there calculations of how much heat is transferred from the warm upper ocean levels to the lower cold thermocline?
    5. How much of the melting of polar ice are continuation of the exit from the last ice age? And how much are human induced?
    I have a dozen more questions that I cannot leave to scientists funded by money from the United Nations to arrive at conclusions which are not well founded scientifically. Yes, I am not a scientist but I have these questions that they must answer before I will begin to believe them.

    Reply

    • In reply to Gabriel

      Gabriel,

      Why do you say that these questions remain unanswered? Have you ever asked a climate scientist these questions? I'm not a scientist either, but I can try and answer two of your questions – keep in mind however that there may be many things I'm not seeing here so while my answers seem accurate to me they may be completely wrong from the point of view of a climate researcher. In my opinion, all of us laymen have to add this disclosure to any statements we make.

      1. It's a question of how much warming. We're not looking at warming that we humans can feel immediately. In fact, how many of us can feel an increase of just 1 or 2 degrees? Moreover, this warming need not be uniform. Some places will be colder than before, and some places much hotter. The minute percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere causes some warming – and we're only looking at that "some" warming.

      2. There is considerable discussion of deforestation and global warming.

      You say you can't trust scientists funded by the UN. Then which scientists will you trust? Those funded by oil and coal companies? Like the studies sponsored by the tobacco industry showing that cigarette smoking is harmless to health? I'm sorry to contradict you here, but the climate researchers are from all countries, all organizations, all governments and across all branches. Not one of them is trustworthy? Be reasonable.

      Reply

  5. Bhagwad, This is well argued. I think it is terribly important for people to be educated well enough to know two things that a lot of people don't understand: 1) the LIMITS to their understanding; and 2) Who they can trust. I tend to trust scientists funded by the UN more than scientists funded by oil companies. Most scientists working for government or academia went into their line of work because it pays the bills nicely and it lets them do what they want to do: science. Most are not just trying to make money. The ones that are, go to work for BP or Philip Morris. And come on! The UN as a left wing/green conspiracy? To me that is bizarre, given it's history. The UN is a messy, messy organization where a lot of competing interests are at play. The conspiracies there are pretty out in the open and historically have often involved US (or, once upon a time, Soviet) vetoes.

    I need to stop ranting; it's too early for that!

    Reply

    • In reply to Hari Batti

      Thanks Hari (Sorry for your comment going for moderation – let's hope that doesn't happen again.)

      You're right in that if I have to trust someone I'm going to be trusting the UN scientists over those funded by corporations. And it's pretty clear in this case that we can't do the research ourselves. There's just too much danger of leaving out data that we haven't looked at…and we're not that into the subject.

      Reply

  6. I found your blog interesting.

    Our Organization, Liberty Institute, plans to send copies of the report of the NOn-Governmental International Panel of Climate Change (NIPCC) to scientists and activists interested in related issues.

    In case you are interested in having a copy, you can contact us at [email protected]

    Reply

  7. I've heard it said that climate change or global warming is the atheist's religion (at least for those atheists that care for the environment) because it brings out the same kind of aggro and defence – something on the lines of:

    "See that guy, denying climate change /god, environmental armageddon/ eternal hellfire is his fate!"

    Atheists will get together to cluck at the arrogance of the unbeliever.

    The analogy is surprisingly apt in that some devoutly religious people feel they will themselves not escape for the sins of their unbelieving neighbors or that their region/ nation/ the whole world will pay.

    I get the essential difference: Climate change is based on science and should be provable (but I dont think it is beyond shadow of doubt, I suspect there is some exaggeration) while religous belief essentially is just that: a belief that assumes what it needs to.

    but interesting how the external aspects play out so similarly :-)

    thx,
    Jai

    Reply

    • In reply to Jai_C

      It is interesting isn't it :) . If anything, it goes to show that aspects of human personality like fundamentalism are pan-human qualities. Religion just provides a good outlet for those qualities, but humans are creative enough to make do with any situation!

      But of course as you pointed out, Climate Change is based on science and not faith, so that's a pretty big difference. It's believed here than unless people accept the reality of climate change, it'll affect everyone – including those who DO believe in it. That's another difference because when religion comes into play, everyone says that only the unbelievers will go to hell.

      Reply

      • In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park

        "… everyone says that only the unbelievers will go to hell. …"

        small disagreement there though I get what you are saying. natural disasters like katrina/ tsunami etc. which visit their devastation on *all* are blamed on the unbelievers, sinful life etc. maybe we believers get to go to heaven after the event :-) but the earthly effects are being blame-shared.

        Jai

        Reply

  8. It’s not about trying to figure out truth, it is about trying to defy the flase. Climate change is a reality, a natural reality you cannot stop it.

    Humans are part of nature whatever they do is natural. these bully environmentalists will never succeed in depressing human caliber and his will to make his life easy and profitable.

    After 20 years of academic supremacy and hundreds of billions of dollars of costs, the anthropogenic global warming theory seems headed for the dustbin of history.

    Perhaps the admirable action of the Nature Journal of Science to place scientific integrity above partisan politics will be a valuable lesson for the scientific community in the future.

    but the issue is who gave the government the right to waste tax payers money in such propaganda?

    New research from one of the world’s most prestigious scientific organizations indicates that cosmic rays and the sun — not manmade carbon emissions — are the major factors influencing global climate.

    yes they say its the sun, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/ ..

    If the Huffington Post is reporting misconduct charges against a manmade climate change advocate you know the problem is serious.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/28/charles-monnett-investigation-scientific-misconduct-polar-bears_n_911996.html

    Is the New York Times a better dource?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/science/earth/29polar.html

    The Associated Press?
    http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-arctic-scientist-under-investigation-082217993.html

    For Nature now to publish research that eviscerates the anthropogenics theory heralds a tectonic rejection by academia of support for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. “”
    http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/09/07/22086/

    Reply

Leave a Comment