In these postings, a physicist explores some of the arguments which have been used to confuse people about global warming. The arguments to be explored are listed on the right. The posts are short and non-technical. Sections include the following points.Climate skeptics fear that accepting the fact of global warming may cost American jobs. Ironically, the denial of global warming may cost American jobs (1).
Initial skepticism about the science of global warming was promoted by big tobacco (2). This campaign of outright lies is continuing today, covertly supported by special interest groups.
The "Climate-gate" emails do not negate the overall conclusions by scientists worldwide (3).
It is easy to calculate the immediate cost of fixing global warming but the benefit of fixing it is large but not calculable (1).
Earth has had many natural changes in climate in the past. This doesn't reduce the damage that a rapid change will do now (4).
Atmospheric CO2 has already risen well above pre-industrial levels, enough to cause a significant, long-term rise in global temperature (5).
Earth was in a cycle of repeated ice ages, and a little global warming has been beneficial to avoid an oncoming glacial period (6).
The famous "hockey stick" graph shows a recent sharp rise in global temperature, especially in the context of the entire ice age cycle (6).
The recent rise in global temperature is most likely due to human-caused CO2 production (6).
The last decade was the warmest on record, and warming in the Arctic was twice that at the equator (6).
The process of climate change will lead to extreme weather events of all kinds (8).
Predicted climate changes include droughts in the U.S. West and increased rainfall and storms east of the Rockies (7).
Global warming will affect everybody, no matter where you live (9).
Technology is not likely to give us an easy way out of the problem (10).
Conspiracies behind the skeptic arguments
It is not a coincidence that the comments by skeptics follow a certain pattern, as evidenced by comments from skeptics posted below and elsewhere. The sequence seems to be:
1) The CO2 increase isn't happening, or if it is, it is natural. If natural, we can do nothing.
2) Even if it is happening, CO2 increase can't cause global warming.
3) Even if human-caused CO2 increase could cause global warming, the global temperature hasn't risen yet or the rise is not as great as the scientists claim.
4) Even if the global temperature does rise a few degrees, it won't make much difference.
5) In any case, the increased CO2 will be good for plants.
6) Even if the CO2 increase isn't really good for the planet, it would cost us "too much" in American jobs to fix it.
7) Even if we could afford it, it's a UN plot to take American rights away.
This sequence has in fact been deliberately prepared and spread by conspiracies among special interest groups to cause people to doubt and eventually to deny global warming (2). The ultimate goal seems to be to stop or at least delay change. For further information, see, e.g., the books "Heat" by George Monbiot and "Climate Cover-Up: The crusade to deny global warming" by Hoggan and Littlemore. The Wikipedia section Global Warming Controversy lists a number of other references. The Lippard Blog lists the individuals and groups who promote denial of global warming and their actual sources of funding.
In addition to the misconceptions listed in the right panel, there is one that seems to underlie the others. You can get a flavor of what it is from reading some of the comments from skeptics below.
Many skeptics apparently believe that scientists are so stupid that they can make some truly boneheaded mistakes, even in their own specialty. Paradoxically, they also think scientists are smart enough to spontaneously pull off a world-wide conspiracy to fool the public that global warming is real. The reason scientists would do this is not clear -- perhaps they just hunger for the kind of joyful reception they get when they tell their fellow citizens the bad news.
COMMENTS made by readers, and replies from this site, follow directly after the main text of each post, in order of date posted. If you wish to contribute a comment, click on the comment link at the very bottom of the most appropriate page.
Please, if you want to convince others of your point of view, give whatever background you can for what you say. If you think the Earth is warmer because the sun's output has increased lately, please let us know where you read or heard this idea, and any evidence that was given for it. I myself have no idea at all where people are getting some of the ideas stated, and I would really love to find out more about the ideas and what the sources are.
COMMENTS
Feb. 13, 2010: Anonymous said...
Well, I am sceptical about a theory that is based on an inability to explain portions of observed data. There may be numerous reasons other than anthropogenic causes. We are, are we not, in an interglacial period? When warming occurs? And does not the CO2 in the atmosphere trail rather than lead increases in temperature?
The increasing number of errors seen in the IPCC reports reminds me of a rule of trial law: If a witness lies about one thing, his entire testimony can be disregarded.
Feb. 13, 2010: David Mills replied:
I think your comment about witnesses is correct. They sometimes lie, but more frequently simply remember incorrectly. That is why I think forensic science is so much better, and why juries now tend to pay more attention to it. Believing the preponderance of evidence should be our goal.
Unfortunately for our planet, the preponderance of evidence proves that there is an increase in CO2, and the increase is far above normal interglacial levels.
It is amazing to me that you comment as you do, given that your precise objections are discussed extensively in section 5. I am hoping that you will read this section, then write back with your specific response to the discussion there.
Feb. 13, 2010: By email, published by consent. Jonathan said:
I found your blog on global warming and would like your help. I've recently become more of an advocate on this subject (I know: slow learner) and continuously am bombarded by friends in the opposite camp. I am a Christian, and find that virtually every one of my fellow believers feels that the global warming stuff is nonsense (my pastor even called it a religion). My own point of view is that Christians are on the wrong side; we should be advocating for a more globally responsible way of doing business. There are many Biblical verses supporting environmentally friendly actions. So I find myself alone in a sea of nay-sayers and would like your help.
Feb. 14, 2010. David Mills replied.
You may find the site, Christianity Today, helpful. This online magazine's position is that, since the world is God's creation, man's job is stewardship, to cherish and protect the Earth. I am not sure what the opposing argument would be. Perhaps that, if God really wanted the environment protected, He wouldn't let us destroy it. Unfortunately, it would naively seem to me that this kind of argument would imply that if God didn't want us to anything bad, He would stop us. This doesn't seem to be a useful point of view.
Feb. 15, 2010, Anonymous said:
Wow! An entire site foll of baloney trying to pretend that the data actually supports the fantasy of catastrophic warming.
Good luck trying to not look rediculous as you have a whole list of data supported facts listed as misconceptions to be addressed. That's gonna be one heck of a challenge to your religious position.
The glaciers are gone? good used to be about 2000 feet deep around here, if ya miss wm move to Grenland or Antarctica they have plenty.
Feb 15, 2010, David Mills replied:
You must feel good, knowing a whole web site is devoted to correcting the misconceptions that you and the "organized denial industry" are trying to spread. Your post has few other specific points to respond to, except that I will respond once again: I am NOT religious about this.
I would be VERY happy if it were not true, and would be glad to go back to laying on the beach. How about you? How will you feel when it turns out that you were wrong, and it is too late to do anything about it except try to ride out the coming mess?
A recently-released map, now heading section 6 shows that the overall global temperature over the last decade was the warmest on record, and that Arctic areas warmed at about twice the rate of the rest of the planet.
Feb. 17, 2010, Anonymous said:
Organized denial industtry?
I do the same thing you claim to do! I teach freshman physics. I don't get a cent for my views. One thing I am good at is scientific method specifically experimental design and evaluation. Saddly many involved in so called research on this issue think isolating the variable is just a saying with no practical importance. I have followed this issue both in the literature and the public forum for well over 20 years, if it wasn't for the massive backing of the government funding jugernaut and the corruption of the peer review process; catastrophic warming would have been dead at least 10 years ago.
I have friends in supposedly unrelated research fields afraid to pubblish because their real world data accidentally doesn't match the AGW story line.
I would bet that funding lost by researchers, who fail to back up the AGW story because they admit that the real world doesn't match the models, exceeds the total spent by the entire so called "denial industry" by an order of magnitude.
You're welcome to come lay on the beach here, sometimes the ice breaks up and you can get to the sand.
The less than lottery winning chance that I may be wrong is not worth destroying the economy and sentencing billions to poverty related deaths. It would be far cheaper and easier to deal with the problems, if any, as we go. If you think it is such a problem, you should take the lead in Greenpeace's proposed solution. Don't expect me to commit suicide. (Sorry, that is not nice, but I am so tired of the hypocrits calling on the people of third world to wither and die to assuage their fears of warming. Especially since the data does not support their fear and they generally are a lot less green than I am in life style.)
Warmer is better for life, lack of CO2 is one of the greatest limitations on the food chain, I am frezing my butt off 6 months a year and there is a lot more land between me and the pole than between me and the equator.
I am unconvinced about data on past CO2 levels, this work looks doubtful. But if you accept it at all than the CO2 being a climate driver of any significance is a long dead idea. Causality violation is a big deal in the physics I know.
Feb. 17, 2010, David Mills replied:
Yes, "organized denial industry." The skeptics' ideas are in fact known to be generated by several organizations funded by special interest groups, by specialists who have learned from the tobacco industry how to run a very effective "disinformation" campaign. Their techniques are first to attempt to case doubt on the actual findings by having their paid scientists, apparently well-qualified people, make statements and speeches, talk with newspaper reporters and write books (with publishing paid by the same groups) which cast doubt on the findings. They will lie about anything to try to create doubt and mistrust.
As a backup plan, they attack the proposed solutions in a similar way, or cast them as "anti-American." And at the same time, they imply that there will be benefits to the very warming that they deny. See the letters below for some prime examples..
In your particular variation on the anti"AGW" mantra, you skip over the most important issue, with a comment that the CO2 work looks "doubtful." Meaning that you will doubt anything that you don't want to believe. "Causality violation" is an issue of current interest in quantum mechanics, but not in the physics of everyday quantities of matter, including weather systems. These are handled quite well by Newtonian physics, which is causal. I think it is well accepted that if you add enough "greenhouse gas" to an atmosphere, the planet will get hotter.
If you have any actual scientific facts to bring up about the CO2 measurements, I'd like to hear it. So far, ALL of the climate science deniers have simply avoided or shrugged off this issue, or claimed that it is a mere coincidence that the rise exactly matches the development of the industrial age. Or that increased CO2 won't do anything to climate. You all prefer to argue endlessly with the temperature measurements, or the alleged denial of funding to those who didn't toe the line. Anything but deal specifically with the very observations that disprove your position.
Feb. 24, 2010. Anonymous said:
I have a suggestion. Stick to physics and psychology. You know, the actual fields of study your are trained in.
Feb. 24, 2010. David Mills replied:
I find psychology helps me understand the process of denial, and physics helps me understand the field of climate prediction. What is the field of study your are trained in?
An alternate answer, I suppose, is that I live on this planet, and so I have the right (some would say the obligation) to understand it and where it is going. As everyone does.
March 10, 2010. Richard said...
I, like you, have 3 degrees in Science. Yet, I am what you would call an AGW ‘denier’! More correctly, I consider AGW claims and see they lack reason!
I‘ve been a Research Biologist for decades, specializing in experimental design & analysis —pursuing what facts are irrefutable and what facts are merely a Malthusian viewpoint, romanticized as a Naturalistic, 'holier than thou', viewpoint. Back in the early 1970s the eager Environmentalists were plainly misanthropic, despite their contrary claims.
As a young biologist, I refused to participate in such chicanery.
There I was, barely twenty years old (1972), and The Club of Rome TOLD ME that the World would end if I did not hew to their Malthusian views.
They were wrong, and I knew it, though I was decades younger than them.
You, regardless of your age, have yet to do the thinking needed.
In my lifetime, The Club of Rome morphed into the IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change"), by which power & dishonesty amongst GWers became acceptable, …and freakish:
Their reasoning was so false, on so massive a scale, that it should take-away an honest man's breath!
The scale of their claim (the complete destruction of Earth) was so great, and so unbelievable that it convinced millions. No lesser claim could have been so well received.
Chicken Little was terrified because raindrops fell from the sky. Far beyond Chicken Little, the IPCC did not merely fear raindrops; they suggested all humanity would destroy itself and all of planet Earth.
Such a claim is akin to someone shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre that has no exits!
The AGWers were false thirty years ago. Here are some examples as to why:
1.
‘Scientists’ gave computer models extraordinary, unjustifiable ‘weight’. The models were created by programmers who believed in anthropogenic global warming (AGW), so the models produced exactly what they thought. GIGO is one way of putting it.
Models are not independent reflections of reality; models are merely a fancy production of the modelers’ beliefs. If the modeler(s) believe Global Warming is real, they will include perfectly real facts that confirm their views, but they will consider, and model, alternate facts as unimportant.
Computer models enable any scenario the programmer wishes. And, therein lies the basic falsity of computer model predictions.
2.
Blatant inattention to, and evasion of, contrary facts:
*2a. the idea of GW arose from unscientific use of historic temperature data, mainly from commercial airports around which cities eventually grew. 100 yrs of information did not consider that development. All that mattered, to the AGWers, was supposed ‘evidence’ that mankind had acted to warm our Planet.
*2b. whilst AGWers presented 100 yr temp data as absolute, they refused to consider temp data of a mere 2 millennia... disregarding not only the FACT of the Medieval Warming, but also its implications for their claims. The obvious facts that Earth did not become a desert, that the oceans did not flood, that coastal towns or cause mass death, that there was (e.g.) no polar bear extinction, and above all, that it was NOT man-made!
*2c. plants grow twice as much biomass under twice present [CO2]atm ( [X]atm =atmospheric concentration ). If anything, deserts would shrink, and the benefits to agriculture would be a massive assist to the poor.
*2d. tree ring data was never representative of the World's climate
*2e. the plain dishonesty in suggesting that glacial melting would be a rapid, even one or two year, event, when insulative debris alone would delay melting by centuries.
*2f. the blatant failure to consider that complex natural numerical progressions are rarely linear. No-one has examined whether [CO2]atm of 0.027% is at or above the maximum level at which CO2 can act as a 'greenhouse gas' under true atmospheric conditions. What if greater [CO2] has no further effect?
*2g. The AGWers presume that climate should never change, and were it to change it would be catastrophic & evil. How absurd. Climate always changes, so why should it matter if Mankind's CO2 production is a factor? Mankind can adjust, organisms can adjust, and will. Earth will be fine, unless it were to spin out of its solar orbit, or the Sun were to unexpectedly die or explode
3. The AGWers have ignored MASSIVE forces influencing the Earth's climate. Forces that are so massive, in FACT, that Mankind could quadruple [CO2]atm and still be an inconsequential factor! The mass of the Sun constitutes 99.86% of our entire solar system. It is a source of incredible energy release. It is easy to forget that our Sun radiates heat in every direction, not just to our Earth. Consider the vast amount of radiant energy that misses us, that rockets out, at light speed, from the opposite side of our Sun!
Should Sol change its output, if only on a side that affects us, then so it must be! How arrogant of a few false minds —the GW scientists & politicians— to think they know better, to think they should decide the overall Global temperature. They may well argue as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!.
Reason (& science) is not a function of a personal selection of facts. Reason is a matter of facing facts, of seeking facts & of incorporating those facts so mankind can understand the nature of Reality.
March 22, 2010. David Mills replies:
Your answer to my question, if that is what it was, did not raise any scientific fact that disproves that humans have caused global warming. I leave it to the reader to muse on the wild logic in the rest of your blog --- such as why it would matter to life on Earth that solar radiation goes in all directions, and that you apparently believe that there is just one side of the sun which faces us.
March 11, 2010, Richard said...
Your blog posts, your list of arguments, against those who reject AGW, are a blatant, academic, rejection of Reason, of Science, and of Fact. Deeper examination of every one of your arguments renders them false. You should take down this website, and do your homework.
March 11, 2010. Matt said...
David, your information is very well put together and easy to understand for us non-experts
March 12, 2010. safranklyn said...
I find surprising that so many contrarians are commenting in this insulting way in this blog. Some of the comments are even funny. One of the commenters above says: "The models were created by programmers who believed in anthropogenic global warming (AGW)". This is probably the most stupid affirmation that can be expelled (yes, expelled) against models. So if a programmer is Muslim his programs must compute a factorial in a different manner as a Christian? Unbelievable. This makes me think that the author of the blog is on the right track, if they insist in insulting without actually arguing. Please, go on, they are afraid of your message.
March 15, 2010. Anonymous said...
No a Muslim does not compute a factorial differently than a Christian but if he were modeling community life you can bet his programs would model things differently than a Christian. All Computer Models begin with assumptions including AGW models. The assumptions are going to be selected based on the modelers beliefs as to what is important .... if he/she believes CO2 is the major driver of climate (it is not) than it's effect is going to be overstated (which it obviously is) and changes in CO2 levels will show far more change in the model than they have been observed in the real world. The failure of models to reflect real world observations is a major arguement against their use for projecting the future.
March 15, 2010. David Mills replied...
Several letter writers have expressed the same idea, that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere do not cause a "greenhouse" effect -- that they do not stop some of the outgoing radiation in the infrared band and re-radiate it back to Earth. First, it would be very useful if you could tell us where you individually learned this idea, and what evidence was given for it.
Second, excerpts from the articles making this, and similar, arguments are summarized in section 5. which is the one which deals with CO2 levels. To the extent that I can, given my limited knowledge of the sources for these ideas, I have made some preliminary remarks in reply. I hope you will all continue to comment in turn.
March 19, 2010. Philip Clarkson said...Well, I am sceptical about a theory that is based on an inability to explain portions of observed data. There may be numerous reasons other than anthropogenic causes. We are, are we not, in an interglacial period? When warming occurs? And does not the CO2 in the atmosphere trail rather than lead increases in temperature?
The increasing number of errors seen in the IPCC reports reminds me of a rule of trial law: If a witness lies about one thing, his entire testimony can be disregarded.
Feb. 13, 2010: David Mills replied:
I think your comment about witnesses is correct. They sometimes lie, but more frequently simply remember incorrectly. That is why I think forensic science is so much better, and why juries now tend to pay more attention to it. Believing the preponderance of evidence should be our goal.
Unfortunately for our planet, the preponderance of evidence proves that there is an increase in CO2, and the increase is far above normal interglacial levels.
It is amazing to me that you comment as you do, given that your precise objections are discussed extensively in section 5. I am hoping that you will read this section, then write back with your specific response to the discussion there.
Feb. 13, 2010: By email, published by consent. Jonathan said:
I found your blog on global warming and would like your help. I've recently become more of an advocate on this subject (I know: slow learner) and continuously am bombarded by friends in the opposite camp. I am a Christian, and find that virtually every one of my fellow believers feels that the global warming stuff is nonsense (my pastor even called it a religion). My own point of view is that Christians are on the wrong side; we should be advocating for a more globally responsible way of doing business. There are many Biblical verses supporting environmentally friendly actions. So I find myself alone in a sea of nay-sayers and would like your help.
Feb. 14, 2010. David Mills replied.
You may find the site, Christianity Today, helpful. This online magazine's position is that, since the world is God's creation, man's job is stewardship, to cherish and protect the Earth. I am not sure what the opposing argument would be. Perhaps that, if God really wanted the environment protected, He wouldn't let us destroy it. Unfortunately, it would naively seem to me that this kind of argument would imply that if God didn't want us to anything bad, He would stop us. This doesn't seem to be a useful point of view.
Feb. 15, 2010, Anonymous said:
Wow! An entire site foll of baloney trying to pretend that the data actually supports the fantasy of catastrophic warming.
Good luck trying to not look rediculous as you have a whole list of data supported facts listed as misconceptions to be addressed. That's gonna be one heck of a challenge to your religious position.
The glaciers are gone? good used to be about 2000 feet deep around here, if ya miss wm move to Grenland or Antarctica they have plenty.
Feb 15, 2010, David Mills replied:
You must feel good, knowing a whole web site is devoted to correcting the misconceptions that you and the "organized denial industry" are trying to spread. Your post has few other specific points to respond to, except that I will respond once again: I am NOT religious about this.
I would be VERY happy if it were not true, and would be glad to go back to laying on the beach. How about you? How will you feel when it turns out that you were wrong, and it is too late to do anything about it except try to ride out the coming mess?
A recently-released map, now heading section 6 shows that the overall global temperature over the last decade was the warmest on record, and that Arctic areas warmed at about twice the rate of the rest of the planet.
Feb. 17, 2010, Anonymous said:
Organized denial industtry?
I do the same thing you claim to do! I teach freshman physics. I don't get a cent for my views. One thing I am good at is scientific method specifically experimental design and evaluation. Saddly many involved in so called research on this issue think isolating the variable is just a saying with no practical importance. I have followed this issue both in the literature and the public forum for well over 20 years, if it wasn't for the massive backing of the government funding jugernaut and the corruption of the peer review process; catastrophic warming would have been dead at least 10 years ago.
I have friends in supposedly unrelated research fields afraid to pubblish because their real world data accidentally doesn't match the AGW story line.
I would bet that funding lost by researchers, who fail to back up the AGW story because they admit that the real world doesn't match the models, exceeds the total spent by the entire so called "denial industry" by an order of magnitude.
You're welcome to come lay on the beach here, sometimes the ice breaks up and you can get to the sand.
The less than lottery winning chance that I may be wrong is not worth destroying the economy and sentencing billions to poverty related deaths. It would be far cheaper and easier to deal with the problems, if any, as we go. If you think it is such a problem, you should take the lead in Greenpeace's proposed solution. Don't expect me to commit suicide. (Sorry, that is not nice, but I am so tired of the hypocrits calling on the people of third world to wither and die to assuage their fears of warming. Especially since the data does not support their fear and they generally are a lot less green than I am in life style.)
Warmer is better for life, lack of CO2 is one of the greatest limitations on the food chain, I am frezing my butt off 6 months a year and there is a lot more land between me and the pole than between me and the equator.
I am unconvinced about data on past CO2 levels, this work looks doubtful. But if you accept it at all than the CO2 being a climate driver of any significance is a long dead idea. Causality violation is a big deal in the physics I know.
Feb. 17, 2010, David Mills replied:
Yes, "organized denial industry." The skeptics' ideas are in fact known to be generated by several organizations funded by special interest groups, by specialists who have learned from the tobacco industry how to run a very effective "disinformation" campaign. Their techniques are first to attempt to case doubt on the actual findings by having their paid scientists, apparently well-qualified people, make statements and speeches, talk with newspaper reporters and write books (with publishing paid by the same groups) which cast doubt on the findings. They will lie about anything to try to create doubt and mistrust.
As a backup plan, they attack the proposed solutions in a similar way, or cast them as "anti-American." And at the same time, they imply that there will be benefits to the very warming that they deny. See the letters below for some prime examples..
In your particular variation on the anti"AGW" mantra, you skip over the most important issue, with a comment that the CO2 work looks "doubtful." Meaning that you will doubt anything that you don't want to believe. "Causality violation" is an issue of current interest in quantum mechanics, but not in the physics of everyday quantities of matter, including weather systems. These are handled quite well by Newtonian physics, which is causal. I think it is well accepted that if you add enough "greenhouse gas" to an atmosphere, the planet will get hotter.
If you have any actual scientific facts to bring up about the CO2 measurements, I'd like to hear it. So far, ALL of the climate science deniers have simply avoided or shrugged off this issue, or claimed that it is a mere coincidence that the rise exactly matches the development of the industrial age. Or that increased CO2 won't do anything to climate. You all prefer to argue endlessly with the temperature measurements, or the alleged denial of funding to those who didn't toe the line. Anything but deal specifically with the very observations that disprove your position.
Feb. 24, 2010. Anonymous said:
I have a suggestion. Stick to physics and psychology. You know, the actual fields of study your are trained in.
Feb. 24, 2010. David Mills replied:
I find psychology helps me understand the process of denial, and physics helps me understand the field of climate prediction. What is the field of study your are trained in?
An alternate answer, I suppose, is that I live on this planet, and so I have the right (some would say the obligation) to understand it and where it is going. As everyone does.
March 10, 2010. Richard said...
I, like you, have 3 degrees in Science. Yet, I am what you would call an AGW ‘denier’! More correctly, I consider AGW claims and see they lack reason!
I‘ve been a Research Biologist for decades, specializing in experimental design & analysis —pursuing what facts are irrefutable and what facts are merely a Malthusian viewpoint, romanticized as a Naturalistic, 'holier than thou', viewpoint. Back in the early 1970s the eager Environmentalists were plainly misanthropic, despite their contrary claims.
As a young biologist, I refused to participate in such chicanery.
There I was, barely twenty years old (1972), and The Club of Rome TOLD ME that the World would end if I did not hew to their Malthusian views.
They were wrong, and I knew it, though I was decades younger than them.
You, regardless of your age, have yet to do the thinking needed.
In my lifetime, The Club of Rome morphed into the IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change"), by which power & dishonesty amongst GWers became acceptable, …and freakish:
Their reasoning was so false, on so massive a scale, that it should take-away an honest man's breath!
The scale of their claim (the complete destruction of Earth) was so great, and so unbelievable that it convinced millions. No lesser claim could have been so well received.
Chicken Little was terrified because raindrops fell from the sky. Far beyond Chicken Little, the IPCC did not merely fear raindrops; they suggested all humanity would destroy itself and all of planet Earth.
Such a claim is akin to someone shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre that has no exits!
- March 11, 2010: David Mills replied:
- So, your idea is that if there is a fire in a theater, it is much better to do nothing?
- You say you have three degrees in science. It surprises me then that nowhere do you specifically critique any of the scientific findings. How about writing back, and telling us all what is specifically wrong with the CO2 measurements? Then we can all rest easy.
The AGWers were false thirty years ago. Here are some examples as to why:
1.
‘Scientists’ gave computer models extraordinary, unjustifiable ‘weight’. The models were created by programmers who believed in anthropogenic global warming (AGW), so the models produced exactly what they thought. GIGO is one way of putting it.
Models are not independent reflections of reality; models are merely a fancy production of the modelers’ beliefs. If the modeler(s) believe Global Warming is real, they will include perfectly real facts that confirm their views, but they will consider, and model, alternate facts as unimportant.
Computer models enable any scenario the programmer wishes. And, therein lies the basic falsity of computer model predictions.
2.
Blatant inattention to, and evasion of, contrary facts:
*2a. the idea of GW arose from unscientific use of historic temperature data, mainly from commercial airports around which cities eventually grew. 100 yrs of information did not consider that development. All that mattered, to the AGWers, was supposed ‘evidence’ that mankind had acted to warm our Planet.
*2b. whilst AGWers presented 100 yr temp data as absolute, they refused to consider temp data of a mere 2 millennia... disregarding not only the FACT of the Medieval Warming, but also its implications for their claims. The obvious facts that Earth did not become a desert, that the oceans did not flood, that coastal towns or cause mass death, that there was (e.g.) no polar bear extinction, and above all, that it was NOT man-made!
*2c. plants grow twice as much biomass under twice present [CO2]atm ( [X]atm =atmospheric concentration ). If anything, deserts would shrink, and the benefits to agriculture would be a massive assist to the poor.
*2d. tree ring data was never representative of the World's climate
*2e. the plain dishonesty in suggesting that glacial melting would be a rapid, even one or two year, event, when insulative debris alone would delay melting by centuries.
*2f. the blatant failure to consider that complex natural numerical progressions are rarely linear. No-one has examined whether [CO2]atm of 0.027% is at or above the maximum level at which CO2 can act as a 'greenhouse gas' under true atmospheric conditions. What if greater [CO2] has no further effect?
*2g. The AGWers presume that climate should never change, and were it to change it would be catastrophic & evil. How absurd. Climate always changes, so why should it matter if Mankind's CO2 production is a factor? Mankind can adjust, organisms can adjust, and will. Earth will be fine, unless it were to spin out of its solar orbit, or the Sun were to unexpectedly die or explode
3. The AGWers have ignored MASSIVE forces influencing the Earth's climate. Forces that are so massive, in FACT, that Mankind could quadruple [CO2]atm and still be an inconsequential factor! The mass of the Sun constitutes 99.86% of our entire solar system. It is a source of incredible energy release. It is easy to forget that our Sun radiates heat in every direction, not just to our Earth. Consider the vast amount of radiant energy that misses us, that rockets out, at light speed, from the opposite side of our Sun!
Should Sol change its output, if only on a side that affects us, then so it must be! How arrogant of a few false minds —the GW scientists & politicians— to think they know better, to think they should decide the overall Global temperature. They may well argue as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!.
Reason (& science) is not a function of a personal selection of facts. Reason is a matter of facing facts, of seeking facts & of incorporating those facts so mankind can understand the nature of Reality.
March 22, 2010. David Mills replies:
Your answer to my question, if that is what it was, did not raise any scientific fact that disproves that humans have caused global warming. I leave it to the reader to muse on the wild logic in the rest of your blog --- such as why it would matter to life on Earth that solar radiation goes in all directions, and that you apparently believe that there is just one side of the sun which faces us.
March 11, 2010, Richard said...
Your blog posts, your list of arguments, against those who reject AGW, are a blatant, academic, rejection of Reason, of Science, and of Fact. Deeper examination of every one of your arguments renders them false. You should take down this website, and do your homework.
March 11, 2010. Matt said...
David, your information is very well put together and easy to understand for us non-experts
March 12, 2010. safranklyn said...
I find surprising that so many contrarians are commenting in this insulting way in this blog. Some of the comments are even funny. One of the commenters above says: "The models were created by programmers who believed in anthropogenic global warming (AGW)". This is probably the most stupid affirmation that can be expelled (yes, expelled) against models. So if a programmer is Muslim his programs must compute a factorial in a different manner as a Christian? Unbelievable. This makes me think that the author of the blog is on the right track, if they insist in insulting without actually arguing. Please, go on, they are afraid of your message.
March 15, 2010. Anonymous said...
No a Muslim does not compute a factorial differently than a Christian but if he were modeling community life you can bet his programs would model things differently than a Christian. All Computer Models begin with assumptions including AGW models. The assumptions are going to be selected based on the modelers beliefs as to what is important .... if he/she believes CO2 is the major driver of climate (it is not) than it's effect is going to be overstated (which it obviously is) and changes in CO2 levels will show far more change in the model than they have been observed in the real world. The failure of models to reflect real world observations is a major arguement against their use for projecting the future.
March 15, 2010. David Mills replied...
Several letter writers have expressed the same idea, that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere do not cause a "greenhouse" effect -- that they do not stop some of the outgoing radiation in the infrared band and re-radiate it back to Earth. First, it would be very useful if you could tell us where you individually learned this idea, and what evidence was given for it.
Second, excerpts from the articles making this, and similar, arguments are summarized in section 5. which is the one which deals with CO2 levels. To the extent that I can, given my limited knowledge of the sources for these ideas, I have made some preliminary remarks in reply. I hope you will all continue to comment in turn.
It is no coincidence that as the globalization of industrialized developments gathers pace fueled by unprecedented technological advances, global warming and adverse global climatic change, increase exponentially!
There is a clear correlation between exponential fossil fuel usage, and global carbon emission levels, which are a major global warming driving force.
Sadly, the very resource (petroleum) that fuels our global growth enhances the greenhouse effect, which exacerbates global warming. We are caught in a desperate loop, a user cycle.
Practically every aspect of our lives involves using resource that pollute. We are addicted to pollutants, like the smoker who has been told to quit the habit or it will be terminal, we promise, then relapse through lack of willpower, and clear understanding.
Alternative energy promotion; plus the introduction, of fuel efficient Eco-friendly hybrid automobiles; only scratch the surface of a deeper broader 150 year pollution trail, that Keelhauling our planets resource has left in it’s wake, like, Rapid population growth coupled with rapid global development, global land usage change, exponential fossil fuel usage, and aggressive adverse C o2 emission levels.
Radical global Climatic change is not new, geological samples taken globally, show major heating and cooling event cycle’s over time, the difference now, is that we are witnessing Accelerating adverse global climatic events in the life cycle of our species, that are not in line with historical trends or climate model projection’s.
Man made or not, it is prudent to take stock, and ask do we have control, and more importantly, did we ever have, control.
If we ignore the warnings, then it is business as usual, there will be more Casualties, from ripple effect geopolitical turmoil, spawned by an increasingly unstable global Eco-system, which will continue to make corrective adaptive measures, as it strives to maintain global ambiance.
One of those adaptive measures could be earths natural response to a perceived global heating event, this could take the form of rapid global cooling as accelerated polar melt starts to influence the earths gulf stream, which is the earths major heat exchange mechanism, responsible for maintaining global ambient temperatures, that all dependent species, have enjoyed up till now.
We must not discount the planets ability for radical simpatico adaptation or second guess our earth’s superior Eco system which has survived for eons in hostile space environments. The part we play may be minuscule in comparison, however misguided in the extreme.
So as we approach crunch time, we look to the bridge for clear decisive action.
But no such action will be taken, because of radical uncertainty that permeates the whole debate on global climate change, at best there in no one on the bridge, and those that are raising the alarm are failing to relay damage assessment to a captain that is beset by problems, that makes those of a floundering ship seem trivial.
Radical c o 2 emission level reduction is the only game in town and must have a timescale that allows for Global adaptation, coupled with nuclear and inclusive renewable sustainable Solutions, that measure up to the extent of the problem.
(Some Solutions for the mitigation of long-term radical adverse global Climate change)
1. Make sure emissions peak in 2012 and decrease as rapidly as possible towards zero after that.
2. Developed countries must make cuts of 50 percent on their 1990 carbon emissions by 2030 with mandatory regulation by United Nations.
3. Developing countries must slow the growth of emissions by 20 percent by 2040, with support from industrialized nations
It is clear there is a need to link global sustainable economies, with global Eco-sustainability.
Failure to coalesce, for the mitigation of global adverse climatic change, in the short term, will force the planet to make that decision for us, whatever action we take then, will ultimately benefit the planet.
Long live, the planet.
March 22, 2010. David Mills replies..
Thank you very much for a very good analysis. The only thing I would add is that it is not due to chance that such arguments against the data and conclusion have been so loudly spread.
March 20, 2010. Bob Cormack said...
"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future."
Niels Bohr
Mills misses a couple of crucial points in his defense of the AGW hypothesis:
First: The important facts are not whether or not global warming is happening or what effects it might have. The important points are, are Humans responsible for it, and can we control it? These are not proved by simply noting that the climate is warming and CO2 is increasing.
Second: The ability to predict the future is proven by demonstration, not by theoretical arguments. The claim that the climate can be predicted 100s of years in advance by models that have yet to demonstrate any predictive skill distinguishable from chance is absurd. Tweaking a model to "predict the past" is no substitute for actual demonstration of predictive skill as a great many users of stock market systems can attest.
The supporters of the AGW hypothesis wish to make massive and dangerous changes to society on the basis of their unproven claim to be able to predict the future. Anyone who is not skeptical of such a claim is not being rational.
March 22, 2010. David Mills replies...
Humans clearly are causing it through a massive carbon dioxide infusion into our atmosphere, increasing human generated CO2 from perhaps a per cent in 1800 to 30%of the total today.
Whether we do anything to slow the resulting temperature change down (which is all we can do) is up to us.
Please see my blog on "Earth in 2050" to see how no model is needed to predict the immediate future from the present, assuming we don't change anything, as you would have us do.
I also would argue that anyone who ignores the warnings of an impressive group such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the one being irrational. As to claims that the IPCC has exaggerated the problem, the recent March 23, 2010 Science Daily contains a report of a peer-reviewed article that summarizes evidence that the IPCC reports have actually understated the problem.
/
Well, I am sceptical about a theory that is based on an inability to explain portions of observed data. There may be numerous reasons other than anthropogenic causes. We are, are we not, in an interglacial period? When warming occurs? And does not the CO2 in the atmosphere trail rather than lead increases in temperature?
ReplyDeleteThe increasing number of errors seen in the IPCC reports reminds me of a rule of trial law: If a witness lies about one thing, his entire testimony can be disregarded.
Oh, yes, the O.J. defense.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately for our planet, the preponderance of evidence proves that there is an increase in CO2, and the increase is way above normal interglacial periods.
It is amazing to me that you reply as you do, given that your precise objections are completely dealt with in section 3, which you could not have read.
Organized denial industtry?
ReplyDeleteI do the same thing you claim to do! I teach freshman physics. I don't get a cent for my views. One thing I am good at is scientific method specifically experimental design and evaluation. Saddly many involved in so called research on this issue think isolating the variable is just a saying with no practical importance. I have followed this issue both in the literature and the public forum for well over 20 years, if it wasn't for the massive backing of the government funding jugernaut and the corruption of the peer review process; catastrophic warming would have been dead at least 10 years ago.
I have friends in supposedly unrelated research fields afraid to pubblish because their real world data accidentally doesn't match the AGW story line.
I would bet that funding lost by researchers, who fail to back up the AGW story because they admit that the real world doesn't match the models, exceeds the total spent by the entire so called "denial industry" by an order of magnitude.
You're welcome to come lay on the beach here, sometimes the ice breaks up and you can get to the sand.
The less than lottery winning chance that I may be wrong is not worth destroying the economy and sentencing billions to poverty related deaths. It would be far cheaper and easier to deal with the problems, if any, as we go. If you think it is such a problem, you should take the lead in Greenpeace's proposed solution. Don't expect me to commit suicide. (Sorry, that is not nice, but I am so tired of the hypocrits calling on the people of third world to wither and die to assuage their fears of warming. Especially since the data does not support their fear and they generally are a lot less green than I am in life style.)
Warmer is better for life, lack of CO2 is one of the greatest limitations on the food chain, I am frezing my butt off 6 months a year and there is a lot more land between me and the pole than between me and the equator.
I am unconvinced about data on past CO2 levels, this work looks doubtful. But if you accept it at all than the CO2 being a climate driver of any significance is a long dead idea. Causality violation is a big deal in the physics I know.
I, like you, have 3 degrees in Science. Yet, I am what you would call an AGW ‘denier’! More correctly, I consider AGW claims and see they lack reason!
ReplyDeleteI‘ve been a Research Biologist for decades, specializing in experimental design & analysis —pursuing what facts are irrefutable and what facts are merely a Malthusian viewpoint, romanticized as a Naturalistic, 'holier than thou', viewpoint. Back in the early 1970s the eager Environmentalists were plainly misanthropic, despite their contrary claims.
As a young biologist, I refused to participate in such chicanery.
There I was, barely twenty years old (1972), and The Club of Rome TOLD ME that the World would end if I did not hew to their Malthusian views.
They were wrong, and I knew it, though I was decades younger than them.
You, regardless of your age, have yet to do the thinking needed.
cont'd...
In my lifetime, The Club of Rome morphed into the IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change"), by which power & dishonesty amongst GWers became acceptable, …and freakish:
ReplyDeleteTheir reasoning was so false, on so massive a scale, that it should take-away an honest man's breath!
The scale of their claim (the complete destruction of Earth) was so great, and so unbelievable that it convinced millions. No lesser claim could have been so well received.
Chicken Little was terrified because raindrops fell from the sky. Far beyond Chicken Little, the IPCC did not merely fear raindrops; they suggested all humanity would destroy itself and all of planet Earth.
Such a claim is akin to someone shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre that has no exits!
Your blog posts, your list of arguments, against those who reject AGW, are a blatant, academic, rejection of Reason, of Science, and of Fact. Deeper examination of every one of your arguments renders them false. You should take down this website, and do your homework.
ReplyDeleteThe AGWers were false thirty years ago. Here are some examples as to why:
ReplyDelete1.
‘Scientists’ gave computer models extraordinary, unjustifiable ‘weight’. The models were created by programmers who believed in anthropogenic global warming (AGW), so the models produced exactly what they thought. GIGO is one way of putting it.
Models are not independent reflections of reality; models are merely a fancy production of the modelers’ beliefs. If the modeler(s) believe Global Warming is real, they will include perfectly real facts that confirm their views, but they will consider, and model, alternate facts as unimportant.
Computer models enable any scenario the programmer wishes. And, therein lies the basic falsity of computer model predictions.
2.
Blatant inattention to, and evasion of, contrary facts:
*2a. the idea of GW arose from unscientific use of historic temperature data, mainly from commercial airports around which cities eventually grew. 100 yrs of information did not consider that development. All that mattered, to the AGWers, was supposed ‘evidence’ that mankind had acted to warm our Planet.
*2b. whilst AGWers presented 100 yr temp data as absolute, they refused to consider temp data of a mere 2 millennia... disregarding not only the FACT of the Medieval Warming, but also its implications for their claims. The obvious facts that Earth did not become a desert, that the oceans did not flood, that coastal towns or cause mass death, that there was (e.g.) no polar bear extinction, and above all, that it was NOT man-made!
*2c. plants grow twice as much biomass under twice present [CO2]atm ( [X]atm =atmospheric concentration ). If anything, deserts would shrink, and the benefits to agriculture would be a massive assist to the poor.
*2d. tree ring data was never representative of the World's climate
*2e. the plain dishonesty in suggesting that glacial melting would be a rapid, even one or two year, event, when insulative debris alone would delay melting by centuries.
*2f. the blatant failure to consider that complex natural numerical progressions are rarely linear. No-one has examined whether [CO2]atm of 0.027% is at or above the maximum level at which CO2 can act as a 'greenhouse gas' under true atmospheric conditions. What if greater [CO2] has no further effect?
*2g. The AGWers presume that climate should never change, and were it to change it would be catastrophic & evil. How absurd. Climate always changes, so why should it matter if Mankind's CO2 production is a factor? Mankind can adjust, organisms can adjust, and will. Earth will be fine, unless it were to spin out of its solar orbit, or the Sun were to unexpectedly die or explode
3. The AGWers have ignored MASSIVE forces influencing the Earth's climate. Forces that are so massive, in FACT, that Mankind could quadruple [CO2]atm and still be an inconsequential factor! The mass of the Sun constitutes 99.86% of our entire solar system. It is a source of incredible energy release. It is easy to forget that our Sun radiates heat in every direction, not just to our Earth. Consider the vast amount of radiant energy that misses us, that rockets out, at light speed, from the opposite side of our Sun!
Should Sol change its output, if only on a side that affects us, then so it must be! How arrogant of a few false minds —the GW scientists & politicians— to think they know better, to think they should decide the overall Global temperature. They may well argue as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!.
Reason (& science) is not a function of a personal selection of facts. Reason is a matter of facing facts, of seeking facts & of incorporating those facts so mankind can understand the nature of Reality.
I find surprising that so many contrarians are commenting in this insulting way in this blog. Some of the comments are even funny. One of the commenters above says: "The models were created by programmers who believed in anthropogenic global warming (AGW)". This is probably the most stupid affirmation that can be expelled (yes, expelled) against models. So if a programmer is Muslim his programs must compute a factorial in a different manner as a Christian? Unbelievable. This makes me think that the author of the blog is on the right track, if they insist in insulting without actually arguing. Please, go on, they are afraid of your message.
ReplyDeleteNo a Muslim does not compute a factorial differently than a Christian but if he were modeling community life you can bet his programs would model things differently than a Christian. All Computer Models begin with assumptions including AGW models. The assumptions are going to be selected based on the modelers beliefs as to what is important .... if he/she believes CO2 is the major driver of climate (it is not) than it's effect is going to be overstated (which it obviously is) and changes in CO2 levels will show far more change in the model than they have been observed in the real world. The failure of models to reflect real world observations is a major arguement against their use for projecting the future.
ReplyDeleteIt is no coincidence that as the globalization of industrialized developments gathers pace fueled by unprecedented technological advances, global warming and adverse global climatic change, increase exponentially!
ReplyDeleteThere is a clear correlation between exponential fossil fuel usage, and global carbon emission levels, which are a major global warming driving force.
Sadly, the very resource (petroleum) that fuels our global growth enhances the greenhouse effect, which exacerbates global warming. We are caught in a desperate loop, a user cycle.
Practically every aspect of our lives involves using resource that pollute. We are addicted to pollutants, like the smoker who has been told to quit the habit or it will be terminal, we promise, then relapse through lack of willpower, and clear understanding.
Alternative energy promotion; plus the introduction, of fuel efficient Eco-friendly hybrid automobiles; only scratch the surface of a deeper broader 150 year pollution trail, that Keelhauling our planets resource has left in it’s wake, like, Rapid population growth coupled with rapid global development, global land usage change, exponential fossil fuel usage, and aggressive adverse C o2 emission levels.
Radical global Climatic change is not new, geological samples taken globally, show major heating and cooling event cycle’s over time, the difference now, is that we are witnessing Accelerating adverse global climatic events in the life cycle of our species, that are not in line with historical trends or climate model projection’s.
Man made or not, it is prudent to take stock, and ask do we have control, and more importantly, did we ever have, control.
If we ignore the warnings, then it is business as usual, there will be more Casualties, from ripple effect geopolitical turmoil, spawned by an increasingly unstable global Eco-system, which will continue to make corrective adaptive measures, as it strives to maintain global ambiance.
One of those adaptive measures could be earths natural response to a perceived global heating event, this could take the form of rapid global cooling as accelerated polar melt starts to influence the earths gulf stream, which is the earths major heat exchange mechanism, responsible for maintaining global ambient temperatures, that all dependent species, have enjoyed up till now.
We must not discount the planets ability for radical simpatico adaptation or second guess our earth’s superior Eco system which has survived for eons in hostile space environments. The part we play may be minuscule in comparison, however misguided in the extreme.
So as we approach crunch time, we look to the bridge for clear decisive action.
But no such action will be taken, because of radical uncertainty that permeates the whole debate on global climate change, at best there in no one on the bridge, and those that are raising the alarm are failing to relay damage assessment to a captain that is beset by problems, that makes those of a floundering ship seem trivial.
Radical c o 2 emission level reduction is the only game in town and must have a timescale that allows for Global adaptation, coupled with nuclear and inclusive renewable sustainable Solutions, that measure up to the extent of the problem.
(Some Solutions for the mitigation of long-term radical adverse global Climate change)
1. Make sure emissions peak in 2012 and decrease as rapidly as possible towards zero after that.
2. Developed countries must make cuts of 50 percent on their 1990 carbon emissions by 2030 with mandatory regulation by United Nations.
3. Developing countries must slow the growth of emissions by 20 percent by 2040, with support from industrialized nations
It is clear there is a need to link global sustainable economies, with global Eco-sustainability.
Failure to coalesce, for the mitigation of global adverse climatic change, in the short term, will force the planet to make that decision for us, whatever action we take then, will ultimately benefit the planet.
Long live, the planet.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future."
ReplyDeleteNiels Bohr
Mills misses a couple of crucial points in his defense of the AGW hypothesis:
First: The important facts are not whether or not global warming is happening or what effects it might have. The important points are, are Humans responsible for it, and can we control it? These are not proved by simply noting that the climate is warming and CO2 is increasing.
Second: The ability to predict the future is proven by demonstration, not by theoretical arguments. The claim that the climate can be predicted 100s of years in advance by models that have yet to demonstrate any predictive skill distinguishable from chance is absurd. Tweaking a model to "predict the past" is no substitute for actual demonstration of predictive skill as a great many users of stock market systems can attest.
The supporters of the AGW hypothesis wish to make massive and dangerous changes to society on the basis of their unproven claim to be able to predict the future. Anyone who is not skeptical of such a claim is not being rational.