[Speed Gibson,
Wednesday December 8, 2004 at 2:56pm]
The Religious Order of Global Warming
They've got us this time claims a Star Tribune Editorial (12/6):
The big problem with such efforts in the past is that the models continually predicted future effects many times those actually observed. Now they have it right they claim. I'm skeptical because you can always make a model complicated enough to explain the past, and if desired, what you expect in the near future.
A far better analysis and perspective, well worth reading is CLIMATE ALARM - Where Does it Come From by Prof. Richard S. Lindzen of MIT. He discusses global warming in terms of self-interested alarmists, and whether their alarms have scientific merit.
Professor Lindzen describes what he calls the repeating "iron triangle" of alarmism:
Lindzen adds:
The Professor appears to be the exception, and has provided an excellent example of critical thinking applicable to many other areas as well.
Now British scientists have produced the first research tracing the human signature" in a particular weather pattern, and the conclusion is sobering: Greenhouse gases and other modern alterations to Earth's climate at least doubled the risk of Europe's long, lethal summer, the hottest recorded in at least 500 years. The new computer model also suggests that current trends may make half of European summers as hot or hotter within the next 40 years. By the end of the century, such a summer could rank as relatively mild.
The big problem with such efforts in the past is that the models continually predicted future effects many times those actually observed. Now they have it right they claim. I'm skeptical because you can always make a model complicated enough to explain the past, and if desired, what you expect in the near future.
A far better analysis and perspective, well worth reading is CLIMATE ALARM - Where Does it Come From by Prof. Richard S. Lindzen of MIT. He discusses global warming in terms of self-interested alarmists, and whether their alarms have scientific merit.
With respect to science, consensus is often simply a sop to scientific illiteracy. After all, if what you are told is alleged to be supported by all scientists, then why do you have to bother to understand it. You can simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief, and you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists except for a handful of corrupted heretics.
Professor Lindzen describes what he calls the repeating "iron triangle" of alarmism:
- Scientists make meaningless or ambiguous statements.
- Advocates and media translate statements into alarmist declarations.
- Politicians respond to alarm by feeding scientists more money.
Lindzen adds:
- The advocates define public virtue.
- His administrators are delighted with the grant overhead.
Should the scientist ever feel guilt over the matter, it is assuaged by two irrestible factors:
The Professor appears to be the exception, and has provided an excellent example of critical thinking applicable to many other areas as well.