Too bad you stopped following science with Ptolemny: a lot has changed in 2000 years. For one thing, there is almost no controversy in science about global warming, but there's a lot of controversy in the Popular Press, sometimes called the MSM.

Methusalah, it's simply not true when you say that there's no controversy among scientists about global warming. You're lying perhaps even to yourself on the topic- much like Al Gore, I suspect. Even the title of his movie implies the kind of smug self-satisfaction and unwillingness to serious consider dissenting opinions that will tell you the content is not intellectually credible.

In fact, the commercial press are just ridiculous in pimping the global warming hysterics, as per that ABC News fishing spot I cited in the article.

It's going to take a lot more than a snide remark and an invocation of the authorita of SCIENCE ie the judgments of the human beings who currently conduct science, to establish the truth value of these big overarching claims. It will take a lot of ACTUAL science- PROOF, which simply isn't there so far as I can see.

These same scientists also beleive in silly stuff like evolution and the big bang.

So this appeal to authority doesn't work on me man.

Al Gore sez, "I did it. I killed ManBearPig. I've saved the earth from certain destruction. Everyone is super-stoked on me, even if they don't know it."

"Why were temperatures higher 500 years ago?...Perhaps they had global warming caused by dinosaur flatulence."

There were dinosaurs in 1506? I wonder if that's what killed Columbus. Sorry I couldn't resist.

I do agree that there's not enough data over the Earth's lifetime to be able to see any type of pattern, although I am okay with trying to live a life with less pollution.

"I find it unlikely that gases floating in the atmosphere are really that significant."

You are wrong about this from what I have read. It's the greenhouses gases in the atmosphere that trap some of the Sun's radiation, keeping the planet warm enough to sustain life. Now if you were getting philosophical about whether or not life on the planet is signifigant, I might not disagree with you.

Howdy Bicho, glad to hear from you. Gases in the atmosphere are certainly significant. I probably should have written something more like, 'I find it unlikely that extra co2 from my car is that significant to our atmosphere.' But that would have detracted from the simpler point at hand in that closing paragraph.

I'm generally in favor of less pollution. Everybody wants to breath clean air and drink clean water. But how much cleaner in what ways at what expense are significant questions that need to be addressed rationally, rather than through some apocalyptic quasi-religious fervor that brooks no dissent.

However, I don't think Christopher Columbus would have had much problem handling the dinosaurs, being a tough Italian stallion and all- though perhaps some French explorers might have been eaten here and there.

Robert Anton Wilson is dying. He has an auction posted on eBay that you might enjoy that only has 24 hours left. If he lives others will be posted too. I see him often and know that in this critical time in his life he has much wisdom to relay to us. He is calling himself "not not" right now. Check it out:

since when has rationality been a guiding force in history and change - ?

shit - the whole point of consumptive capitalism is to subjugate the complex nature of reason to the more simple notion of profit

so don't hold your breath waiting for questions to be addressed and plans made rationally

troll

troll

Great article, Al!

One of the problems I have with global warming advocates is their projections for what to expect in the future. Most (if not all) base their forecasts on what is happening today, and begin their predictions with a phrase like "If the current rate of increase of (insert favorite negative here) continues over the next xx years..."

Scientists have made such predictions for a long time--you mention those who in the seventies predicted global cooling (wonder how many of THEM are now on the GW bandwagon?), Malthus' dire warnings of the earth running out of food are another classical example of scientific forecasts not panning out, in his case because he didn't have sufficient information to foresee the rapid advances in agricultural techniques that came after him.

The inconsistency of forecast A when compared to B or C is another problem area for me. Predictions in re the rise of sea levels, for example, vary widely, from a few inches over the next fifty years to dozens of feet.

Another questionable area in the controversy is the motives of the alarmists. Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has an interesting article
on this point. Admittedly, there are those who question the motives of the debunkers as well, but as you said, Al, there's a lot more to the whole debate than the public sees in the MSM.

Thanks Clavos. As a religiously skeptical skeptic of religion, my antennae are tuned for those signs of religious fervor. But of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're wrong. Blind disbelief can be as bad as blind belief.

The trick is trying to figure out as best as possible what's really going on, rather than just going with what I'm pre-disposed to believe or being railroaded into buying some hoakum.

Interesting and amusing observations, Al.

My favorite thing about global warming is that even freak cold snaps, snowstorms and hail are touted as signs of it.

If the summer continues to be below average in temperature just like this spring was, those abnormally cool temperatures will presumably be a critical sign of global warming too.

Because it's a belief driven by faith rather than reason, all things are possible under the holy umbrella of global warming.

Take comment #1 by Meth. Because he doesn't agree with global warming theory, hundreds of scientists automatically either don't exist (must be a big shock to them) or else those scientists have to be religiously motivated. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. They just have questions about a theory - and it IS still a theory - which so many are accepting uncritically as if it were proven fact.

Dave

Altogether, it'll be a danged shame to have to let go of ol' RAW, but it seems like he's been knockin' on heaven's door for awhile now. Heck, he wasn't looking that healthy when I met him near to 10 years ago.

In the meantime, that's one appropriately freaky auction you've got going there. He's SO not right.

If you think it might give him a spot of entertainment in his last days, you might share with him my casting of him as yin/yang with Ayn Rand as a voice in my head HERE.

Please send him my love. XOX

For those wanting to check out the RAW auction, both URLs previously posted are incorrect. Try this link instead.

Dave

My favorite thing about global warming is that even freak cold snaps, snowstorms and hail are touted as signs of it.

It IS funny, isn't it?

My particular peeve on the subject is the constant invoking of the disaster of Katrina as evidence of what the effects of global warming will wreak. In point of fact, Katrina was only a moderate storm--the disaster came from a variety of factors having nothing whatever to do with the climate, other than the fact of the storm itself.

About RAW: Even Daves offer of a link doesn't work, but I found this interesting sentence in wikipedia:

"He is known for his work as a novelist, essayist, philosopher, psychologist, futurist, anarchist, and conspiracy researcher."

But nothing about any scientific research that would contribute to RAW having an informed opinion on global warming. But he may be an interesting dinner companion.

Robert Anton Wilson is dead. He had an auction posted on eBay that you might have enjoyed but its too late. Since he is dead no more will be posted. I saw him often and knew that in this critical time in his life he has much wisdom to relay to us. By the way we are going to auction off his clothes, show and bicycle on ebay!

Methuselah- I'd think you'd get a little more sense being so old, but you're just determined not to get the point. You don't need to agree, but it'd be nice if you acknowledged that you understood my honest skepticism.

Specifically, I was not invoking RAW as an expert in climatology. I have no idea what his opinions on global warming might be. That's not the point.

The point of invoking Wilson and really of this whole article is philosophical, or pre-scientific. Scientific philosophy would be a general range of ideas in which RAW would have top expertise, theories of knowledge and epistemology.

But yes, RAW would be a hell of a dinner companion. Cocktail hour at a linguistics conference in NYC circa 1997 with Robert Anton Wilson was certainly one of the more entertaining evenings of my life. Get a couple of drinks in him and start swapping conspiracy theories. Good times.

"Methusalah, it's simply not true when you say that there's no controversy among scientists about global warming. You're lying..."

And you're misrepresenting The Ancient One, who said "...almost no controversy..". Amazing that you would attempt such a bald lie when the rebuttal is so handy.

Nevertheless, while one is hardpressed to discover the scientific credentials of RA Wilson, the science and math of Ptolemny is more interesting and more powerful. While Ptolemny was wrong about the nature of planetary movement, he was quite right about the math. For many years navigators successfully got from one place to another without problems employing his tables and 'epicycles'. And the modern science student would recognize Ptolemnys epicycles as coefficients in a McLauren series, as indeed it is. You DO remember Fourier from your Analytic Function Theory courses, don't you Al? You know, LaPlace transforms, Taylor series, etc. Or were you dozing that day, content to know that the cheat sheets in the frat house would allow you to ace the test without the distracting bother of having to actually study and understand the material?

Damn, I wish we'd had cheat sheets in our frat house instead of 24 hour beer on tap. I guess that's why I took psychology instead of physics.

Dave

Bliffle, was there supposed to be any other point to your diatribe other than childish one-upsmanship? Were any of these other names you dropped relevant to the discussion at hand? Was there some point to this that I missed?

A little defensive are we?

It's only one-upsmanship because you put in your stake with your Ptolemy and your Euclid.

And it points up something that some of us think is important: the difference in knowing something from reading and knowing something from experience. The thing is, you like to pay lip service to objectivity and empiricism, and you particularly like to deride those who you believe are making judgements based on their emotions or faith. But you don't seem to have engaged in much of the actual nuts and bolts of science, math and logic yourself. I would argue that there is a deeper level of knowledge and ability you get from the experience of trying to solve problems, looking in the back of the book and having going back through your calculations to figure out why your answer doesn't match theirs. There's an almost physical sense of understanding you get from grinding different sets of numbers through equations, a sense that won't come from just reading off the "right" answer.

You make statements like this: "Ptolemy had far better basis for his theories than do modern global warming advocates", when you clearly have little idea of what climatologists base their theories on. Okay, you read about Ptolemy. Did you try to duplicate his work? Have you tried to duplicate the work of modern climate scientists? How do you know what you just professed to know?

In my opinion you are more vulnerable to "emotional mammalian inaccuracies" entering your thinking than the next guy (at least if the next guy is a half-decent scientist or engineer) if you haven't practiced scientific reasoning. It's like shooting a gun or driving a car: all the reading in the world isn't going to make you an expert, or even competent at it.

Objectivity, and particularly the lack of it in those who disagree with you, is a running theme in your posts. You do something similar in music: you like to talk about absolute standards. But can you read a note? Have you even played an instrument? What makes you think you can make credible claims about something you haven't actively experienced?

You're an entertaining writer and all, and you have reasonably catholic tastes; but you come off a bit like the 40-year-old virgin of quantitative reasoning.

No JR, I'm not particularly defensive. I don't claim to know much. As Lonesome Rhodes would say, "Shoot, I'm just a country boy."

But I do try to understand reality as best I can, and you and Bliffle with your pointless little pissing contests are contributing nothing to the discussion but cheap ego. Was there some point to Bliffle's comment other than name dropping to prove how smart he is?

It's as if you two are determined to illustrate for us the kind of low level egotism of the South Park version of Al Gore. You're not answering any of my questions or offering a counter explanation, but merely invoking your supposed expertise, and I need to respect your authorita.

I had a specific explanation for why I thought Ptolemy was more rigorously scientific than global warming science. You've not said anything to contradict that or any particular argument I've made, other than just a general smear that I'm a big dummie.

OK, you win. I'm a big dummie- but this global warming theory still looks like BS. So dumb it down for a Kentuckian, will you- where am I wrong?

" So dumb it down for a Kentuckian, will you- where am I wrong?"

You started with a predetermined political answer and then sought contrived science to support your position. That's where you went wrong.

In the next century, it is likely that enough of the world's above sea level ice packs will melt to flood much of the Netherlands, Bangladesh, and other parts of the world. If you think that only a 50% chance of that happening is too low to care, don't try telling that to the leaders of those nations who are trying to do something about it.

Also:

"Why were temperatures higher 500 years ago? It obviously wasn't because of evil white American men driving SUVs. Perhaps they had global warming caused by dinosaur flatulence. That temperatures were higher than this perhaps as recently as a few hundred years ago looks to me like evidence AGAINST the theory of man-made global warming. Perhaps it's just totally run of the (very slow cosmic) mill that temperatures will fluctuate a couple of degrees per century. I'd find that very easy to believe- which is the reason that I would take my own explanation here with a grain of salt. Still, that seems reasonable to me."

If you had read your excerpt:

"The Earth is warmer today than at any point the last 400 years, and likely, the last millennium, a committee convened by the National Academy of Sciences concluded in a report released Thursday.

Congress sought the 155-page analysis of Earth's past temperatures after a dispute erupted a year ago, when Texas Congressman Joe Barton sharply questioned the methods of Michael Mann and two other researchers, who had published scientific papers stating the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the late 20th century than at any time in the past 1,000 years.

[...]

As for the period from A.D. 1000 to 1600, North said many, but not all locations where temperatures were measured support Mann's research."

You're an entertaining writer and all, and you have reasonably catholic tastes; but you come off a bit like the 40-year-old virgin of quantitative reasoning.

Patronizing and condescending.

You DO remember Fourier from your Analytic Function Theory courses, don't you Al? You know, LaPlace transforms, Taylor series, etc. Or were you dozing that day, content to know that the cheat sheets in the frat house would allow you to ace the test without the distracting bother of having to actually study and understand the material?

Ditto.

It doesn't take a scientific background to recognize Ad Hominem arguments.

What horseshit.

The post is more about the author than global warming, so why shouldn't the responses be?

for the record, Bob is very much alive. june 25. he just watched the sunday morning news.

You started with a predetermined political answer and then sought contrived science to support your position. That's where you went wrong.

LOL, so you're accusing him of exactly the same thing the believers in global warming are guilty of. For political reasons they need an environmental crisis as a hammer to impose their agenda, so they latched onto global warming and are milking it and promoting it far beyond its legitimacy as science. I smell irony.

dave

I'm definitely not a fan of Al Gore, but considering a House Republican who chairs a key environmental committee recently agreed with Gore that there is global warming, it's kind of hard to argue that it doesn't exist. In addition to that, the increasing activity of earthquakes near the Ring of Fire seem to suggest more heat within the earth does exist. There are a number of things that could cause this, though, in addition to greenhouse gases.

I doubt very much that greenhouse gases could cause increased volcanic activity - more like the otherway around.

Most opponents of current global warming theory don't disagree with the basic idea that we're in a warming cycle. They disagree with the idea that humans caused it and that our actions can slow or reverse it. As you point out, there are an awful lot of other factors in play - like geothermal activity and solar flares - which we have absolutely no control over. Plus it quite likely is just part of a natural cycle similar to many which we have evidence of in the past.

Dave

E- I'm glad to hear Bob's hanging in. I remember seeing him talk about having read his own obituaries in the past. I can well imagine him having a Richard Pryor moment, "I ain't dead yet, motherf(*&#rs!"

On the plus side though, this prompted me to whoop up a little Robert Anton Wilson site home at MoreThings, collecting a couple of my articles and some links and photos.

Bliffle writes, "You started with a predetermined political answer and then sought contrived science to support your position." But that's not true. I don't have any science to support my position. I have no particular proof AGAINST the theory of global warming.

It's not my job as a skeptic to prove my position here- it is up to you to prove YOUR position to me. It's not a 50/50 game. The burden of proof is entirely on you. You are making a positive claim to knowledge- and wanting to use force of arms to impose your opinions on the rest of us. You'd better expect to have to really and seriously PROVE your case.

Likewise, I can't prove that Jesus of Nazareth is NOT floating in the air as a holy ghost watching us and preparing places of torment for people that don't believe in him or the fire and brimstone of global warming. Christian wants me to believe their ghost story, they're going to have to prove it.

Now, I'm well known as an all-round no-goodnik- a lover of farm animals, freaky music and fine herbs. Y'all can cuss me up one side and down the other. You might even be right in some of your criticism. Knock yourselves out.

But that still won't constitute any proof whatsoever of your pet global warming theory. You can tell me I'm going to hell like some Baptist preacher working up the fire and brimstone. However, far as I can tell you're story is just as not true as that of the fundies. That being the case, I'm not believing, and like disbelieving an illusionist's spell in a game of Dungeons and Dragons, your threat dissipates.

And NF, this ain't proof: "In the next century, it is likely that enough of the world's above sea level ice packs will melt to flood much of the Netherlands, Bangladesh, and other parts of the world." That's just made up. NOBODY knows anything like that about stuff 50 or 100 years into the future. What, ya got ya a time machine?

Well, lots of people KNOW it- but they're all just making crap up in their own minds- and then demanding that I believe it. I wouldn't know a co-efficient in a McLauren series if it bit me in the ass, but I'm reasonably certain that he doesn't have a crystal ball.

It's like Bill Maher's quote, "Can't you just FEEL it?" No- no, I don't. Then y'all get mad at me because I do not accept the truthy feeling down in YOUR guts as evidence.

We'll close this Sunday worship service with my favorite holy man Paul Simon

Faith- faith is an island in the setting sun
Proof, yeah, proof is the bottom line for everyone

Plus it quite likely is just part of a natural cycle similar to many which we have evidence of in the past.

And NF, this ain't proof: "In the next century, it is likely that enough of the world's above sea level ice packs will melt to flood much of the Netherlands, Bangladesh, and other parts of the world." That's just made up. NOBODY knows anything like that about stuff 50 or 100 years into the future. What, ya got ya a time machine?

"Quoted for truth" (With apologies to gonzo marx)

Isn't it interesting that the same atmospheric scientists who make these predictions about conditions 50 to 100 years in the future can't tell us what the weather will be like next week?

Isn't it interesting that the same business owners who make a reliable profit every year off games of chance can't predict when they are going to lose a bunch of money to a lucky gambler?

Thank you JR for contributing that lovely non-sequitir. From the phrasing, it would appear to be intended as an answer to Clavos, but I'm not seeing enough of a connection to get up even to the level of being a false analogy.

Nice post Al
I too wondered what makes the earth warmer and cooler. If it is volcanic action or the sun or astroids, then rapid climate change is normal. But it seems no one can place the all powerful "Cause" in macro climatic changes, or at least to scientific standards.

I wonder what the cure would do to the planet? What world economic impact would there be in order to 'fix' global warming?

I wonder what the cure would do to the planet? What world economic impact would there be in order to 'fix' global warming?

Excellent (and the most important) question, Mohjho!

Kent Brockman: "Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?"

Professor: "Yes I would, Kent."

Excellent blog. If you want some corroboration from people with lots of PhD's and other pedigrees check out this site: friendsofscience.org

Also, the issue of the global temperature over the last 1000 years... there's an excellent research article done on Paleoclimatology that shows a nice gradual down trend from the year 1000 to the 1400's and then the same reciprical up trend to current time. Which makes the climate change look suspiciously natural. If it was caused by human activity the upswing should be much more sharp and drastic than the downswing. Read the article starting on page 18 here: