Global Warming on Free Republic here, here and here
Posted on 12/26/2015 9:02:07 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
************************************
Full Title
***********************
Lindzen: A recent exchange in the Boston Globe clearly illustrated the sophistic nature of the defense of global warming alarm
*************************
A recent exchange in the Boston Globe clearly illustrated the sophistic nature of the defense of global warming alarm.
In the December 3, 2015 edition of the Boston Globe, the distinguished physicist, Freeman Dyson, had on op-ed, “Misunderstandings, questionable beliefs mar Paris climate talks.†His main point, stated immediately, is that any agreement reached in these talks would “likely do more harm than good.†In an otherwise, thoughtful commentary, however, Dyson begins with a common error. He attributes the basis for climate alarm to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
For reasons that I will address shortly, this is an entirely understandable error. Dyson’s description of the IPCC position is
“The IPCC believes climate change is harmful; that the science of climate change is settled and understood; that climate change is largely due to human activities, particularly the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by industrial societies; and that there is an urgent need to fight climate change by reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide.â€
To be sure, it would be hard to identify the ‘beliefs’ of the IPCC, but I take it that he means their position. Obviously, the IPCC does not claim that the ‘science is settled;’ that would destroy the raison raison d’être for the existence of the IPCC.
Also, insofar as the IPCC is not supposed to make policy recommendations, it does not claim “that there is an urgent need to fight climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.†That climate change is harmful is, of course, the basis for the existence of the IPCC, and is an intrinsic source of regrettable bias. The IPCC does not claim that climate change is mostly due to human activities generally; it restricts itself to the period since about 1970, which was the end of the most recent cooling period (a period which gave rise to global cooling concerns). Even the IPCC recognizes that climate change has always occurred – including a warming episode from about 1919 to 1940 that was almost identical to the warming episode from about 1978 to 1998 that the IPCC does identify with human activities. However, all the claims cited by Dyson are frequently made by politicians and environmental activists (including Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General of the UN), and the IPCC scientists never really object. Why should they? Support for climate science (a rather small backwater field) has increased from about $500 million per year to about $9 billion.
Dyson, further notes that the ice ages were major examples of climate change that we don’t fully understand, and that lacking this understanding suggests that we don’t really understand climate change. As another example of something that we don’t understand, he cites the potential role of the sun. Dyson then goes on to praise environmentalism in general, to approve of the increasing wealth of China and India, and their understandable unwillingness to forego this, and finally notes the well-known fact that CO2 is plant food whose increase has been associated with extraordinarily valuable increases in agricultural productivity.
In the December 13, 2015 Boston Globe, 8 members of the MIT faculty (three physicists, two hydrologists, one meteorologist, and two atmospheric chemists) attacked both Dyson and his claims. Their letter was entitled “So much more is understood about climate change than skeptic admits.â€
They proceed to express their dismay with Dyson’s “limited understanding and short-sighted interpretation of basic elements of climate science.†There follow 3 disingenuous objections to Dyson’s scientific examples. As concerns ice ages, the MIT professors argue that they took thousands of years, allowing humans to adapt. They ignore the Dansgard-Oeschger events (episodes of dramatic change within glacial periods) which involved major changes in decades as well as the onset of the Younger Dryas (where glaciation suddenly reoccurred after the initial deglaciation of the last major glaciation) that also involved major changes setting on in decades. With respect to the sun, they argue that solar activity changes have been minor, ignoring the potential amplification due to solar impacts on cloud formation, most recently explored by Svensmark and Shaviv, but already suggested by Dickinson in the 1970’s. With respect to the role of CO2 as plant food, the letter writers appeal, without justification, to other limiting factors, ignoring that the greatest limiting factor, water, is alleviated with elevated levels of CO2. They also ignore literally hundreds of observational studies.
The letter writers then propose that ‘prospects’ in renewable energy, energy efficiency and safe and secure nuclear energy should presumably justify the abandonment of cheap, safe and available fossil fuels by developing nations. Yes, safe. Control of real pollutants is well developed already.
The letter writers go on to their only unambiguously correct claim: namely, that the IPCC does not declare that the science is settled. They then present the iconic statement if the IPCC’s Working Group 1 (the one dealing with the scientific assessment – as opposed to the remaining 2 working groups that generally begin with worst case scenarios in order to claim impacts and design mitigation strategies): “The IPCC report presents strong evidence that more than half of the climate change seen in recent decades is human-driven.†One may readily disagree with the claim of ‘strong evidence’ since the claim (based on model results) depends on the assumption that models correctly display natural internal variability which very clearly they don’t.
That said, the claim that most of the climate change since 1960 is due to human activities, refers to more than half of a change on the order of only 0.5C, and is entirely consistent with the possibility that the sensitivity is low and far from dangerous – especially since model projections for warming since 1978 have almost all exceeded what has been observed (regardless of ‘adjustments to the data). Indeed, the warming since the end of the little ice age (around 1800) of about 1C has been accompanied by improvements in virtually all measures of human welfare. Why another 1C should be considered planet threatening is rarely explained. The letter writers’ conclusion that the observed warming implies “a great risk that increasing greenhouse gases will result in future climate change with destructive consequences for humanity and the natural environment†does not follow from the iconic statement; nor is it made by the IPCC. Rather, it is, as has already been noted, the conclusion that is added by environmental activists and politicians.
A careful reading of the letter of the 8 professors leaves one wondering whether the dismay they express over Dyson’s “limited understanding and short-sighted interpretation of basic elements of climate science†is not merely a projection of their own limitations and biases.
Really had to chop up the title to get within the word limit.
fyi
FOOLS defending FOOLS
There is no man made global warming and there has always been and always will be climate change...also not man made!!!
Definition of “sophistry” -
: the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false
: a reason or argument that sounds correct but is actually false
There is no redeeming social benefit anywhere for the attribution of global warming (or cooling, for that matter) to anthropogenic sources. Locally, human activity may cause things like dirty water or dirty air, or acute problems with distribution, but the overall patterns of the equations of heat gain and loss exist apart from and independent of the actions of mankind.
Or charlatans defending charlatans, or maybe fools defending charlatans, or even charlatans defending fools.
Global Warming, its not the validity of the argument but the Volume that seems to matter.
Bookmark
47 thoughts on “Lindzen: A recent exchange in the Boston Globe clearly illustrated the sophistic nature of the defense of global warming alarmâ€
************************************************************
daveandrews723 says:
But those 8 scientists are “saving the worldâ€, don’t yuo know? Just ask them. Oh, and they have also built very nice careers for themselves with the HUGE increases in climate science grants over the past couple of decades. Those junkets to Paris, Copenhagen, etc. aren’t cheap. But only a cynic (skeptic) would accuse them of putting their egos and self-interest ahead of science.
************************
Santa Baby says:
No they are not saving the World. They are in fact destroying the World in order to save Marxism?
***************************************************
Goldrider says:
Soooo . . . let’s write a rebuttal and dispute them, point by point. That’s what it’s going to take for the average newsbag to start dismissing this stuff as the sophistry it is.
******************************************************
jayhd says:
“limited understanding and short-sighted interpretation of basic elements of climate scienceâ€
What is “climate science� From what I have read and observed, most of the climate scientists who perpetuate the AGW hoax are anything but scientists. Pre-eminent among them is Michael Mann, who refuses to release his data and methodology. Mann has no problem suing those who disagree with him, but refuses to answer interrogatories from those he is suing. And rather than debate the merits of their science and findings, the AGW proponents resort to name calling, personal attacks and attempt to stifle debate on the subject through legislative and governmental decree. So to me, “climate science†is on par with astrology and phrenology. In other words, it’s not science.
***************************************************************
Save
*************************************EXCERPTS********************************
David L. Hagen says:
Lindzen eloquently exposes the “climate shmexpertsâ€! See Marc Fitch Shmexperts: How Ideology and Power Politics are Disguised as Science
We are constantly bombarded with studies and so-called expert opinions that are contradictory, controversial, and ineffective
Fitch explains why we need to apply common sense critical thinking to sift the “wheat from chaff†in such exchanges.
The Younger Dryas evidence Lindzen cites is expertly addressed by Don Easterbrook.
Global Warming on Free Republic here, here and here
That's a little overboard. I don't recall astrologists or phrenologists acting like bratty spoiled children when someone disagrees with them. Nor have they acted like fascists trying to use the power of government to punish those who do.
By the time the ice accumulates enough to notice via thousands of year old proxies, the civilization is already wiped out. First comes the weather change, then comes the collapse of civilization, followed years later by the ice accumulation. The weather changes are already beginning. The curved and collapsed jet stream. Bringing a blizzard to New Mexico right now.
I agree.
The current MIT administration should pay more attention to Prof. Lindzen, their former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology who retired in 2013 than to the eight MIT authors whose article Lindzen effectively critiques. The MIT administration appears to favor the anthropogenic global warming / climate change hypothesis and the need to take action to stop possible deleterious effects of global warming. At least, that is my assessment of their communications to alumni like myself. If I'm correct, they are putting MIT's scientific reputation at substantial risk of having succumb to scientific sophistry.
we’re in
PHX, just finished being at an outside Mall, It’s CHILLY KOLD out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.