Mr. Robinson might be in the hurt locker. Not that he's wrong in his assessment of politicians:
"...with the blowhards such as .... who, out of ignorance or perceived self-interest, are willing to play politics with the Earth's future. They may concede that warming is taking place, but they call it a natural phenomenon and deny that human activity is the cause."
Here, Mr. Robinson is on unassailable ground. Being successful in politics quite often implies one is willing to do what it takes, whatever it takes, to get elected to office carrying the banner of any party.
And given that back drop, Mr. Robinson does the only rational thing (OK, not actually rational at all), which is to use assumption to villify those who he thinks uses assumption to arrive at a different conclusions than he does:
"It is true that Muller made no attempt to ascertain "how much of the warming is due to humans." Still, the Berkeley group's work should help lead all but the dimmest policymakers to the overwhelmingly probable answer. We know that the rise in temperatures over the past five decades is abrupt and very large. We know it is consistent with models developed by other climate researchers that posit greenhouse gas emissions -- the burning of fossil fuels by humans -- as the cause."
Mr. Robinson finishes with a tour de farce:
"Nobody's fudging the numbers. Nobody's manipulating data to win research grants, as Perry claims, or making an undue fuss over a "naturally occurring" warm-up, as Bachmann alleges. Contrary to what Cain says, the science is real. It is the know-nothing politicians -- not scientists -- who are committing an unforgivable fraud."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/10/25/climate_change_just_got_hotter_111804.html
The depth of knowledge he displays is shocking for one so certain in their opinion, but I would not expect differently from this writer based on past experience and knowledge of the audience to whom he writes. No one who understands science and cares about it would read his work anyway (unless, like me, they want to gape at buffoonery, albeit, from a seemingly nice man).
I've made my opinion on this topic known many times, but the short rebuttal to the claims Mr. Rob makes is as follows.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
"A larger question is why so many on who occupy the political space which consistently wants and trusts a larger and more powerful government also finds so many reasons to believe that incomplete, inconclusive science is complete and conclusive and beyond discussion."
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Models are of no use in proof of causality, according to the rules and philosophy of science, unless they can predict. If a model cannot predict, it may be interesting but it must be assumed that it is not sufficiently complete to allow one to know what causes what. Probably even Mr. Robinson knows that no climate model has predicted temperature changes accurately enough to serve as proof of what causes the inevitable changes in the climate's temperature. If such a model existed, there would be no controversy. Controversy exists where there is no proof. That is why politicians use the topic of global warming to manipulate voters.
That a anthropogenic climate change "denier" has validated the data sets on global temperatures is newsworthy in a science-ignorant world, but the fact that there's some agreement as to the facts of what the actual temperatures have been does nothing to illuminate why they are what they are or were.
As for the hockey stick diagram, the temps it shows were never the real problem. The problem with the diagram is that it claims to represent temps which rise prior to increases in carbon dioxide levels. The truth of that matter is that that CO2 levels rise as a result of increases in temperature levels. CO2 levels are a trailing indicator of rising temps, and even a non scientist who drinks carbonated beverages knows why. As oceans or soft drinks warm, they lose the ability to hold gasses in solution, and begin to "off gas." Colder oceans hold more dissolved gas.
Another unproved matter - to what extent is CO2 a green house gas? Is it a surprise to know that the assertion that CO2 is a green house gas is a supposition, vice proved? A strong indicator that it may not be a green house gas, and if it is so perhaps it is just a very weak one, is that temps fell after the 1930s, even as CO2 emissions rose. I wonder how Mr. R would explain that fact.
A larger question is why so many on who occupy the political space which consistently wants and trusts a larger and more powerful government also finds so many reasons to believe that incomplete, inconclusive science is complete and conclusive and beyond discussion.
Or as Harsanyi puts it:
What irks Robinson, Matthews and others like them is not that people do not accept “science,” but that they won’t accept the statist solutions tied to that science. Moreover, a Luddite opposes capitalism. A skeptic only asks questions.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/10/26/the_real_luddites_111822.html
Another good discussion of the topic:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/10/27/global_warming_--_rip_111836.html
Updated at 15.56 CDT
Updated 31 October, 2011
"...with the blowhards such as .... who, out of ignorance or perceived self-interest, are willing to play politics with the Earth's future. They may concede that warming is taking place, but they call it a natural phenomenon and deny that human activity is the cause."
Here, Mr. Robinson is on unassailable ground. Being successful in politics quite often implies one is willing to do what it takes, whatever it takes, to get elected to office carrying the banner of any party.
And given that back drop, Mr. Robinson does the only rational thing (OK, not actually rational at all), which is to use assumption to villify those who he thinks uses assumption to arrive at a different conclusions than he does:
"It is true that Muller made no attempt to ascertain "how much of the warming is due to humans." Still, the Berkeley group's work should help lead all but the dimmest policymakers to the overwhelmingly probable answer. We know that the rise in temperatures over the past five decades is abrupt and very large. We know it is consistent with models developed by other climate researchers that posit greenhouse gas emissions -- the burning of fossil fuels by humans -- as the cause."
Mr. Robinson finishes with a tour de farce:
"Nobody's fudging the numbers. Nobody's manipulating data to win research grants, as Perry claims, or making an undue fuss over a "naturally occurring" warm-up, as Bachmann alleges. Contrary to what Cain says, the science is real. It is the know-nothing politicians -- not scientists -- who are committing an unforgivable fraud."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/10/25/climate_change_just_got_hotter_111804.html
The depth of knowledge he displays is shocking for one so certain in their opinion, but I would not expect differently from this writer based on past experience and knowledge of the audience to whom he writes. No one who understands science and cares about it would read his work anyway (unless, like me, they want to gape at buffoonery, albeit, from a seemingly nice man).
I've made my opinion on this topic known many times, but the short rebuttal to the claims Mr. Rob makes is as follows.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
"A larger question is why so many on who occupy the political space which consistently wants and trusts a larger and more powerful government also finds so many reasons to believe that incomplete, inconclusive science is complete and conclusive and beyond discussion."
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Models are of no use in proof of causality, according to the rules and philosophy of science, unless they can predict. If a model cannot predict, it may be interesting but it must be assumed that it is not sufficiently complete to allow one to know what causes what. Probably even Mr. Robinson knows that no climate model has predicted temperature changes accurately enough to serve as proof of what causes the inevitable changes in the climate's temperature. If such a model existed, there would be no controversy. Controversy exists where there is no proof. That is why politicians use the topic of global warming to manipulate voters.
That a anthropogenic climate change "denier" has validated the data sets on global temperatures is newsworthy in a science-ignorant world, but the fact that there's some agreement as to the facts of what the actual temperatures have been does nothing to illuminate why they are what they are or were.
As for the hockey stick diagram, the temps it shows were never the real problem. The problem with the diagram is that it claims to represent temps which rise prior to increases in carbon dioxide levels. The truth of that matter is that that CO2 levels rise as a result of increases in temperature levels. CO2 levels are a trailing indicator of rising temps, and even a non scientist who drinks carbonated beverages knows why. As oceans or soft drinks warm, they lose the ability to hold gasses in solution, and begin to "off gas." Colder oceans hold more dissolved gas.
Another unproved matter - to what extent is CO2 a green house gas? Is it a surprise to know that the assertion that CO2 is a green house gas is a supposition, vice proved? A strong indicator that it may not be a green house gas, and if it is so perhaps it is just a very weak one, is that temps fell after the 1930s, even as CO2 emissions rose. I wonder how Mr. R would explain that fact.
A larger question is why so many on who occupy the political space which consistently wants and trusts a larger and more powerful government also finds so many reasons to believe that incomplete, inconclusive science is complete and conclusive and beyond discussion.
Or as Harsanyi puts it:
What irks Robinson, Matthews and others like them is not that people do not accept “science,” but that they won’t accept the statist solutions tied to that science. Moreover, a Luddite opposes capitalism. A skeptic only asks questions.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/10/26/the_real_luddites_111822.html
Another good discussion of the topic:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/10/27/global_warming_--_rip_111836.html
Updated at 15.56 CDT
Updated 31 October, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment