Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Let the inquisition begin.

There won't be any inquisition. Claude Allègre has been against global warming for some time, and picked a number of other quarrels lately too, all of which is within his rights. But that doesn't matter, because the scientific profession does not rest on "early proponents", but rather on a current consensus of experts. Whether or not Allegre knew what he was talking about 20 years ago, that doesn't mean that he does now. Brian Josephson was an "early proponent" of advanced consequences of quantum mechanics, but now believes in ESP. So what.

Meanwhile the author of the op-ed, Lawrence Solomon, has been a little too eager to find opponents of the theory of global warming:

http://www.desmogblog.com/national-post-ducks-correction-repeats-slander

Solomon has taken cues from the creationists.

Posted by at March 6, 2007 07:12 AM

Another one of Solomon's Denier articles with this whooper:

First, the rising of the oceans due to the melting of the polar caps -- the single biggest fear from global warming -- isn't continuing. The only large potential source of ocean water is Antarctica and the only way to determine if Antarctica is thinning is through the use of satellites. Duncan Wingham, Professor of Climate Physics at University College London and Principal Scientist of the European Space Agency, has unrefuted data that Antarctica, on the whole, is actually thickening, and will "lower global sea levels by 0.08 mm" per year.

He overlooks the Greenland ice sheet, which is melting. Also, new evidence suggests that cracks and crevices will allow liquid water to seep deep into the kilometers thick glaciers, causing cracking and calving.

Ice that cracks off and slides into the Atlantic will raise sea levels just as much as ice that melts.

If human CO2 is not the cause and warming is due to increased solar activity (for example) humanity actually faces a much larger threat which could require massive global engineering to solve.

Posted by Bill White at March 6, 2007 08:38 AM

Ice that simply melts won't raise the sea level any more than ice that melts in a glass will raise the level of water in that glass, Bill. You need to use another analogy. And if solar activity is what's causing the warming, than there is no amount of "global engineering" (whatever that is) that will do a damn thing. Instead, we will have to do that thing we used to be so good at before civilization apparently froze in place, what was it called... oh yeah, "adapt."

Posted by Andrea Harris at March 6, 2007 08:53 AM

Ice that simply melts won't raise the sea level any more than ice that melts in a glass will raise the level of water in that glass, Bill.

Greenland ice does, Andrea. The sheet is sitting on land.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 6, 2007 08:57 AM

Eh. I think there's pretty solid evidence that human activity has elevated CO2 levels substantially above any level in the past 800k years. There's some question about how much of current perceived global warming is due to this increase in CO2. But it's reasonable to believe that human activity has caused some degree of global warming. Whether that is a problem or not is really what's being settled now.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 6, 2007 09:08 AM

Solomon shows you how it's much easier to criticize than to be right yourself. It's the longest string of falsehoods all week. Antarctica is not the only large potential source of ocean water. Satellites are not the only way to determine if Antarctica is either thinning or melting. Thinning is also not the same as melting. Even if the glacier slab is melting, the surface could rise from low-density snow accumulation, or through heat expansion, or from an increase in floating. Or Antarctica could melt quickly at the edges and rise slowly in the middle. (And it certainly has melted substantially at the edges if you compare it with old maps.)

It's exactly the same story as with the creationists. They almost sound interesting when it comes to raising doubts, or digging for dissent, or even finding the crushing of dissent. But if you say, "Okay, what is your version of biology?", then most of them come out with stunning garbage. The few others filch answers from the evolutionary biologists.

Posted by at March 6, 2007 09:09 AM

Yup. Exactly. If floating sea ice melts, sea levels stay constant. Which is why chunks of solid ice sliding off Greenland into the sea will raise sea levels.

Antarctica and Greenland have large quantities of ice sitting above sea level, on solid land, although Greenland may actually be an archipelago of islands, or so I read.

Part of me has a strong and curious desire to see what is underneath those ice sheets, but flooding Florida may be too high a price for indulging my whim, as if if my wishes have any influence whatsoever.

Posted by Bill White at March 6, 2007 09:13 AM

A lot of Antarctica also sits on land. The land under both Greenland and Antarctica is also compressed by ice on top of it. Parts of Antarctica also have a deceptive water layer that does not transmit ice pressure into the outside oceans.

Posted by at March 6, 2007 09:16 AM

If human CO2 is not the cause and warming is due to increased solar activity (for example)

It's my understanding that changes in the solar constant can explain, at most, a small fraction of the warming that has been observed over the past 30 years. The observed pattern of warming is also inconsistent with increased solar forcing (which would warm, not cool, the stratosphere.)

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 6, 2007 09:25 AM

> the scientific profession does not rest on "early proponents", but rather
> on a current consensus of experts.

The "scientific profession" might. Science, on the other hand, depends on evidence, not consensus opinion. In science, as opposed to political science, a single datum can overthrow established theory.

Since political science relies on a consensus (unanimous opinion) of experts, it is necessary for proponents of a theory such as global warming to create a consensus by attacking the reputation of their opponents. Unfortunately, political science only tells us the "consensus" of those who control the community. It tells us nothing about scientific truth.

Based on the current methodology, Galileo and Darwin were "taking cues from the creationists." They disagreed with the "current consensus" of experts and should have been driven out of the scientific community at the time, as global warming skeptics are today.

> Brian Josephson was an "early proponent" of advanced consequences of
> quantum mechanics, but now believes in ESP. So what.

Allègre is talking about evidence. He may be right or wrong, but his statements are at least testable. Political attacks and appeals to the authority of consensus are not. There is evidence on both sides of the global warming debate. That differentiates it from creationism or ESP. > the scientific profession does not rest on "early proponents", but rather
> on a current consensus of experts.

> Brian Josephson was an "early proponent" of advanced consequences of
> quantum mechanics, but now believes in ESP. So what.

Allègre is talking about evidence. He may be right or wrong, but his statements are at least testable. Political attacks and appeals to the authority of consensus are not. There is evidence on both sides of the global warming debate. That differentiates it from creationism or ESP. If the case for global warming is as strong as you claim, you ought to be able to prove it based on the evidence, without needing to call for the suppression of conflicting evidence or driving out of dissenting scientists.

Posted by at March 6, 2007 11:46 AM

Why has "blank" repeatedly posted with references to creationists?

Is he just a troll?

Posted by Jeff Mauldin at March 6, 2007 12:15 PM

You know, if the only problem we face is ice melting on greenland and antartica, why aren't we looking into the world's largest dams?

Perhaps it is because upon closer inspection, it is apparent that only the first mile or so of ice is a problem - the rest is moving too slowly to get to the shore and melt anytime soon?

When I last looked into this, the "consensus" was that Greenland and Antarctic ise was not going to be in the ocean until we have other, far larger problems.

Posted by David Summers at March 6, 2007 12:32 PM

Perhaps it is because upon closer inspection, it is apparent that only the first mile or so of ice is a problem

Glaciers can move surprisingly fast when conditions are right. And, remember that sea levels rose several feet per decade during the time of peak melting at the end of the last ice age. So I would not be prepared to so casually rule out rapid rise in the next several generations.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 6, 2007 01:28 PM

> I would not be prepared to so casually rule out rapid rise in the next several generations.

Paul, there is a difference between "not proved" and "casually ruled out."

There are lots of things one cannot casually rule out happening within the next several generations.

For example, one cannot casually rule out the possibility of the Earth being hit by a large asteroid. Why are there no demands that the world's government take immediate action to stop Global Bombardment, rather than simply studying the problem?

Posted by Edward Wright at March 6, 2007 04:12 PM

Science, on the other hand, depends on evidence, not consensus opinion.

That is true, science itself does depend on evidence. If you are a scientist, then you should not simply point to everyone else's expertise, but look at the research yourself. But if you are not a scientist, a consensus of experts is the most reliable source available. Here a "consensus" does not mean unanimity, it does not mean every last scientist. Scientists are free to believe what they want to believe. When it so happens that 90% of the experts in any given area agree, they are almost always correct.

In science, as opposed to political science, a single datum can overthrow established theory.

There is almost never a single datum that is so persuasive that it overthrows everything else. The idea of a "gotcha" counterexample that overthrows the establishment is also very popular among creationists, going all the way back to Piltdown Man. But science is not like criminal law, where you can throw out a conviction on a technicality. No one has pulled a rabbit out of a hat to make global warming look wrong, certainly not Claude Allègre.

It is necessary for proponents of a theory such as global warming to create a consensus by attacking the reputation of their opponents.

Claude Allègre has a fine and well-deserved reputation, but he is still wrong about global warming. More than wrong, he is wrong-minded. At this point he cares more about politics than science.

Allègre is talking about evidence.

That is exactly what he isn't doing. He's talking about politics. He has a lot of retorts to global warming experts who have lately looked more closely at the evidence than he has.

You ought to be able to prove it based on the evidence, without needing to call for the suppression of conflicting evidence or driving out of dissenting scientists.

It's the mantra of all crackpots: "The establishment disagrees with me, therefore the establishment suppresses me." Allegre is perfectly entitled to his opinion. But it goes nowhere as science, regardless of his past reputation. Solomon misportrays him as a dissenter who points to serious contrary evidence. That is not what Allegre is doing.

Posted by at March 6, 2007 05:03 PM

no name writes:
When it so happens that 90% of the experts in any given area agree, they are almost always correct.

How many examples from history regarding major discoveries do you want to show that this is incorrect?

Posted by Bill Maron at March 6, 2007 08:07 PM

How many examples from history regarding major discoveries do you want to show that this is incorrect?

I have studied major discoveries in science. Most of the time when there is a major discovery, the scientists before were confused and didn't know what was going on, or they knew that they didn't have strong evidence for their views, or in some cases they never even thought to ask the question. It's extremely rare, to say that least, that 90% of scientists are really convinced that something is true, but then find out that it's false. Scientists are self-critical enough not to all go out on the same limb together.

Another principle of the history of science is that lighting doesn't strike the same spot twice. If scientists make a major discovery that a lot of skeptics can't accept --- evolution, global warming, the heliocentric theory --- they don't later make another major "discovery" that undoes the first one. Galileo discovered that the earth goes around the sun, which made a lot of religious leaders unhappy. No one then later discovered that the sun goes around the earth after all. Instead, later discoveries in astronomy could only make the (dwindling) skeptics even less happy.

Global warming is one of the major discoveries of science. That's the Galileo side of it. Climatologists may well discover more later, but you can expect that global warming skeptics will like it even less.

In fact we have already been through a round of it. Before there was global warming there was the ozone hole, which the Stephen Milloy types denied at the time. By now, even most Republican hacks don't dare question the ozone hole; instead they are trying to stay the next unwinnable battle.

Posted by at March 6, 2007 10:07 PM

> In fact we have already been through a round of it. Before there was global warming there
> was the ozone hole, which the Stephen Milloy types denied at the time

You forgot to mention global cooling, limits to growth, and global famine before the end of the 20th Century.

> By now, even most Republican hacks don't dare question the ozone hole;

Ah, now we have it! "Scientist" == registered Democrat?

How about those ozone holes? NASA announced there was no doubt such holes would open over American cities in the summer of 1992. All legitiimate scientists were said to accept it and nonbelievers were denounced as pseudo-scientists, just as they are today.

Since it's "extremely rare" for major discoveries to be proven wrong, where are the ozone holes hiding?

Posted by at March 7, 2007 01:33 AM

Since it's "extremely rare" for major discoveries to be proven wrong, where are the ozone holes hiding?

One would think they'd be easier to find than Osama bin Laden...

Posted by McGehee at March 7, 2007 05:37 AM

global cooling, limits to growth, and global famine before the end of the 20th Century.

There was never a consensus of experts on any of these. It may be true that some expert or even many experts said so or offered it as a speculation, but that is not the same thing as 90% saying that they are convinced.

"Limits to growth" in particular is a vague term that sounds more like a conservative hot-button than a viable scientific theory.

NASA announced there was no doubt such holes would open over American cities in the summer of 1992. All legitiimate scientists were said to accept it and nonbelievers were denounced as pseudo-scientists, just as they are today.

This one is not even plausible as an expert opinion, and sounds rather more like a wild distortion that bounced around some Rush Limbaugh fans. One would have to see a reference to know what to say about it.

For a real discussion of the ozone hole, see here:

http://www.wunderground.com/education/holefaq.asp

It does say that the ozone hole has extended to Punta Arenas, leading to sunburn epidemics in that city.

Posted by at March 7, 2007 07:30 AM

> There was never a consensus of experts on any of these. It may be true that some expert or even many
> experts said so or offered it as a speculation, but that is not the same thing as 90% saying that they are convinced.

"Some experts or many experts" claimed to speak for 100% of the scientific community. They said the science was settled and anyone who disagreed was not a part of the legitimate scientific community.

How is that different from the claims global warmers make today? You can say they were wrong and you are right, but how do you know that, if you won't allow the other side to be part of the scientific debate?

> "Limits to growth" in particular is a vague term that sounds more like a conservative hot-button
> than a viable scientific theory.

No, it is not vague at all. It was the title of a specific report issued by the Club of Rome. Is this the way you address any inconvenient fact?

> This one is not even plausible as an expert opinion, and sounds rather more like a wild distortion that
> bounced around some Rush Limbaugh fans.

NASA, Ted Koppel, and Al Gore were Rush Limaugh fans? I don't believe that to be true.

Even if it were true, what radio station a person listens does not prove the truth or falseness of scientific statements the person makes. Real science is based on objective analysis of the facts, not what lever you pull in a voting booth. Physicists don't judge Stephen Hawking's by examining his political credentials.

> It does say that the ozone hole has extended to Punta Arenas, leading to sunburn epidemics in that city.

Puntas Arenas is not in North America, which is where NASA said the U-2 evidence showed ozone holes would develop in the summer of 1992. Can you point to a wunderground site for ozone holes over North America?

Posted by at March 7, 2007 11:49 AM

Hmm there's some analysis of the claims of Allègre here (about an earlier media piece):
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/con-allegre-ma-non-troppo/

Basically, saying Kilimanjaro isn't melting because of higher temperatures doesn't mean climate change isn't real. And the tectonics he claims are the culprit actually work in million year timescales.

He's also not a climate scientist...

So Rand, where and why do you keep digging up this stuff? What is your agenda?

Posted by mz at March 7, 2007 12:26 PM

What is your agenda?

My "agenda" is to post articles that I find of interest, in the hope that my readers might as well.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 7, 2007 12:28 PM

"Some experts or many experts" claimed to speak for 100% of the scientific community.

There was a time when politics was beset by a small-town mentality that treated the scientific community as an obscure foreign country that sometiems sent trustworthy or untrustworthy delegates. "Hey, Al, there is funny-lookin' guy in town, claims to be a scientist, looks kinda like a travelling salesman." Fortunately, modern communication has moved most of us beyond that. You can see the real scientific consensus very well from sites like Weather Underground, or any university meteorology department web site. All you have to do is discount the small fraction of wild talkers on both sides, because they are far less reliable than the pack.

Real science is based on objective analysis of the facts

That's true, but that process is internal to science. The best way for non-experts to gauge scientific conclusions is to look at consensus coming from the whole web of expertise. A song and dance to the public from a maverick who can't persuade his colleagues is intellectually odious. Yes, he is within their rights, but he is no better than a lawyer who sells on TV what the jury didn't buy.

And again, your tactic here has been used a thousand times by creationists and intelligent designers. Don't listen to the crusty establishment, instead judge the evidence yourself ladies and gentlemen, it's right between this hat and my wand.

You have not pointed to any reference that actually makes these claims. It may or may not be interesting to respond to that reference, if it exists, but it is not interesting to respond to unferenced statements from you.

Hint: "NASA, Ted Koppel, Al Gore" does not work as a usable reference.

Posted by at March 7, 2007 05:37 PM

Post a comment