Dust in Your Eyes
Dust in Your Eyes
by 'tamerlane'
The deniers of Global Warming ("GW") like to present themselves as "skeptics" who are merely practicing scientific open-mindedness to the evidence presented by "alarmists". While I question the Deniers' open-mindedness, I make no apologies for raising the alarm about GW. The end result of our unmitigated raising of global temperatures is cataclysmic disruption of our civilization followed by the eventual extinction of all life on Earth.
The evidence on GW is unassailable. Near-universal consensus exists among the scientific community as to the manmade origin of GW and its dire consequences. The climate data used to arrive at this conclusion is copious, covers hundreds of thousands (in some instances millions) of years, and is entirely self-consistent. The model that was developed to explain this data is robust, and has proven itself highly accurate both in predicting ongoing climate change and at explaining newly discovered historical data. (1)
GW Deniers attack this evidence by casting doubt on: 1) the consensus; 2) the data; and 3) the model. When exposed to scrutiny, all three attacks are exposed as shameful deceptions.
1. The Consensus
Every major scientific organization in the world has issued statements stressing the reality of GW and the urgent need to address it. With one exception-the National Academy of Sciences had its original statement rewritten by the Bush Administration (2)-no legitimate organization has ever expressed any doubt on the subject.
In reply, the Deniers can only offer an handful of fabricated "petitions":
Senator James Inhofe's list of 400 "prominent scientists" who doubt GW, including 44 TV weathermen, 84 persons in the employ of the fossil fuel lobby, and 90 persons with no scientific credentials whatsoever (3);
Statement by Atmospheric Scientists, drafted in 1992 by the oil lobby, with 46 signatories of dubious credentials; rejects GW based on the economic impacts of combating it; suggests sunspots are the cause of GW (4);
Oregon Petition signed by 17,000 "scientists", defined as anyone holding a B.S. degree; author admits that none of the signatories are climate specialists; claims GW is beneficial to mankind; petition was funded by ExxonMobil; author, Fred Seitz, is a former tobacco industry advisor who has denied the health risks of smoking (5);
Leipzig Declaration signed by 80 "scientists", including 25 TV weathermen and several coal and oil industry figures; all key data contained in the declaration has been invalidated; rejects GW based on the economic impacts of combating it; author, S. Fred Singer, is a former weather satellite technician, lists spurious credentials on his resume, was dismissed from his teaching position at the U. of VA, has denied acid rain and ozone layer depletion; Singer's activities are financed by Rev. Moon's Unification Church and by ExxonMobil, Shell, Unocal and ARCO (6).
2. The Data
Deniers nit-pick at the scientific data while offering shockingly little of their own. The Deniers' refutations of the data are either non-sequiturs or simply incorrect, as outlined by BBC News here.
The Denier's own data is limited to one study by Roy Spencer, a meteorologist at the University of Alabama. In 1989 Spencer compiled weather balloon readings, concluding that increased CO2 in the atmosphere had a cooling effect. (7) But to extrapolate Spencer's solitary study on short-term, local weather to reject legion of data collected on long-term, global climate, is naive at best. Even worse, Spencer was forced to admit in 2005 that he had fudged his results, and the readings actually showed that CO2 increases local temperatures. (8)
Relying on Spencer as their champion does not help the Denier's credibility. Spencer is a member of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, "a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development." As host of an Intelligent Design radio show, Spencer rejects Evolution outright, and favors the teaching of Creationism in public science classes. Spencer also denies that DDT has any negative environmental impact. (9). Finally, Spencer is a fellow at three think tanks funded by ExxonMobil and the tobacco lobby. In addition to denying GW, these think tanks also deny the health risk of cigarette smoke. (10)
3. The Model
Deniers claim that the accepted GW model is invalidated by Spencer's falsified data. The best "alternate model" they can come up with is some sloppy amateur formulas - thoroughly debunked by professional mathematicians - from a Viscount Monckton, whose scientific credentials are limited to a degree in classical literature. (11)
As a last resort, deniers address the irrefutable link between manmade CO2 and global climate change with the polemic "correlation does not prove causation." That statement is prima facie true. Just because the increases in global temperature precisely match human-driven increases in CO2 doesn't necessarily mean they are caused by them. But it doesn't much help our understanding unless the Deniers offer a plausible alternative: either how increased temps somehow cause increased manmade CO2, or what is the mystery third causation that affects both.
Healthy Skepticism
GW Deniers present themselves as "skeptics" who keep an open mind about GW. In truth, they rejected GW from the get-go. They are, as the Skeptic's Dictionary (www.Skepdic.com) defines them, mere "contrarians" - "someone who poses as a skeptic, refusing to accept consensus conclusions...on the ground that there is still some uncertainty." Skepdic notes that "in the vast majority of modern cases, scientific consensus can be expected to hold up under scrutiny precisely because it was reached through a lengthy and rigorous process of professional skepticism and criticism." Contrarian demands for "endless analysis of issues to prevent any action from being taken" only benefit "polluters and anyone else opposed to government regulations..." Skepdic concludes that "the contrarian simply wants to throw dust in people's eyes so they can't see what's really going on..." (12)
Michael Shermer, director of The Skeptics Society, warns that "some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas..." Shermer instead sees skepticism as "a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true." Shermer rejects the Socratic definition of skepticism - "All I know is that I know nothing" - as "sterile and unproductive." Shermer stresses that "modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement." For Shermer, the "key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between 'know nothing' skepticism and 'anything goes' credulity." (13)
As is plain to see, GW Deniers are not true skeptics applying scientific methodology. They are contrarians, scam artists in the employ of the oil lobby, big tobacco, and biblical literalists. Don't let them throw dust in your eyes any longer.
(c) 2009 by 'tamerlane.' All rights reserved.
References
1) http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/global_warming_101
2) http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-10-08
3) http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-scientists-46011008
4) http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SEPP_and_the_Statement_by_Atmospheric_Scientists_on_Greenhouse_Warming
5) http://debunking.pbworks.com/Oregon-Petition, http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Seitz.html
6) http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=65, http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=415
7) http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
8) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/science/earth/12climate.long.html?ex=1281499200&en=2588a631b8c5cc5d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist), http://www.squidoo.com/roy-spencer#module17017422
10) http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer
11) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/nov/14/science.comment
12) http://www.skepdic.com/climateskeptics.html, http://www.skepdic.com/contrarian.html
13) http://www.skeptic.com/about_us
by 'tamerlane'
The deniers of Global Warming ("GW") like to present themselves as "skeptics" who are merely practicing scientific open-mindedness to the evidence presented by "alarmists". While I question the Deniers' open-mindedness, I make no apologies for raising the alarm about GW. The end result of our unmitigated raising of global temperatures is cataclysmic disruption of our civilization followed by the eventual extinction of all life on Earth.
The evidence on GW is unassailable. Near-universal consensus exists among the scientific community as to the manmade origin of GW and its dire consequences. The climate data used to arrive at this conclusion is copious, covers hundreds of thousands (in some instances millions) of years, and is entirely self-consistent. The model that was developed to explain this data is robust, and has proven itself highly accurate both in predicting ongoing climate change and at explaining newly discovered historical data. (1)
GW Deniers attack this evidence by casting doubt on: 1) the consensus; 2) the data; and 3) the model. When exposed to scrutiny, all three attacks are exposed as shameful deceptions.
1. The Consensus
Every major scientific organization in the world has issued statements stressing the reality of GW and the urgent need to address it. With one exception-the National Academy of Sciences had its original statement rewritten by the Bush Administration (2)-no legitimate organization has ever expressed any doubt on the subject.
In reply, the Deniers can only offer an handful of fabricated "petitions":
Senator James Inhofe's list of 400 "prominent scientists" who doubt GW, including 44 TV weathermen, 84 persons in the employ of the fossil fuel lobby, and 90 persons with no scientific credentials whatsoever (3);
Statement by Atmospheric Scientists, drafted in 1992 by the oil lobby, with 46 signatories of dubious credentials; rejects GW based on the economic impacts of combating it; suggests sunspots are the cause of GW (4);
Oregon Petition signed by 17,000 "scientists", defined as anyone holding a B.S. degree; author admits that none of the signatories are climate specialists; claims GW is beneficial to mankind; petition was funded by ExxonMobil; author, Fred Seitz, is a former tobacco industry advisor who has denied the health risks of smoking (5);
Leipzig Declaration signed by 80 "scientists", including 25 TV weathermen and several coal and oil industry figures; all key data contained in the declaration has been invalidated; rejects GW based on the economic impacts of combating it; author, S. Fred Singer, is a former weather satellite technician, lists spurious credentials on his resume, was dismissed from his teaching position at the U. of VA, has denied acid rain and ozone layer depletion; Singer's activities are financed by Rev. Moon's Unification Church and by ExxonMobil, Shell, Unocal and ARCO (6).
2. The Data
Deniers nit-pick at the scientific data while offering shockingly little of their own. The Deniers' refutations of the data are either non-sequiturs or simply incorrect, as outlined by BBC News here.
The Denier's own data is limited to one study by Roy Spencer, a meteorologist at the University of Alabama. In 1989 Spencer compiled weather balloon readings, concluding that increased CO2 in the atmosphere had a cooling effect. (7) But to extrapolate Spencer's solitary study on short-term, local weather to reject legion of data collected on long-term, global climate, is naive at best. Even worse, Spencer was forced to admit in 2005 that he had fudged his results, and the readings actually showed that CO2 increases local temperatures. (8)
Relying on Spencer as their champion does not help the Denier's credibility. Spencer is a member of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, "a coalition of religious leaders, clergy, theologians, scientists, academics, and other policy experts committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development." As host of an Intelligent Design radio show, Spencer rejects Evolution outright, and favors the teaching of Creationism in public science classes. Spencer also denies that DDT has any negative environmental impact. (9). Finally, Spencer is a fellow at three think tanks funded by ExxonMobil and the tobacco lobby. In addition to denying GW, these think tanks also deny the health risk of cigarette smoke. (10)
3. The Model
Deniers claim that the accepted GW model is invalidated by Spencer's falsified data. The best "alternate model" they can come up with is some sloppy amateur formulas - thoroughly debunked by professional mathematicians - from a Viscount Monckton, whose scientific credentials are limited to a degree in classical literature. (11)
As a last resort, deniers address the irrefutable link between manmade CO2 and global climate change with the polemic "correlation does not prove causation." That statement is prima facie true. Just because the increases in global temperature precisely match human-driven increases in CO2 doesn't necessarily mean they are caused by them. But it doesn't much help our understanding unless the Deniers offer a plausible alternative: either how increased temps somehow cause increased manmade CO2, or what is the mystery third causation that affects both.
Healthy Skepticism
GW Deniers present themselves as "skeptics" who keep an open mind about GW. In truth, they rejected GW from the get-go. They are, as the Skeptic's Dictionary (www.Skepdic.com) defines them, mere "contrarians" - "someone who poses as a skeptic, refusing to accept consensus conclusions...on the ground that there is still some uncertainty." Skepdic notes that "in the vast majority of modern cases, scientific consensus can be expected to hold up under scrutiny precisely because it was reached through a lengthy and rigorous process of professional skepticism and criticism." Contrarian demands for "endless analysis of issues to prevent any action from being taken" only benefit "polluters and anyone else opposed to government regulations..." Skepdic concludes that "the contrarian simply wants to throw dust in people's eyes so they can't see what's really going on..." (12)
Michael Shermer, director of The Skeptics Society, warns that "some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas..." Shermer instead sees skepticism as "a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true." Shermer rejects the Socratic definition of skepticism - "All I know is that I know nothing" - as "sterile and unproductive." Shermer stresses that "modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement." For Shermer, the "key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between 'know nothing' skepticism and 'anything goes' credulity." (13)
As is plain to see, GW Deniers are not true skeptics applying scientific methodology. They are contrarians, scam artists in the employ of the oil lobby, big tobacco, and biblical literalists. Don't let them throw dust in your eyes any longer.
(c) 2009 by 'tamerlane.' All rights reserved.
References
1) http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/global_warming_101
2) http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-10-08
3) http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-scientists-46011008
4) http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SEPP_and_the_Statement_by_Atmospheric_Scientists_on_Greenhouse_Warming
5) http://debunking.pbworks.com/Oregon-Petition, http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Seitz.html
6) http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=65, http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=415
7) http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
8) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/science/earth/12climate.long.html?ex=1281499200&en=2588a631b8c5cc5d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist), http://www.squidoo.com/roy-spencer#module17017422
10) http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer
11) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/nov/14/science.comment
12) http://www.skepdic.com/climateskeptics.html, http://www.skepdic.com/contrarian.html
13) http://www.skeptic.com/about_us
Labels: Global warming, global warming deniers, skeptics
posted by John Smart at
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
PERMALINK
<< Home