Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Climate Justice: It’s Only Getting Stronger

The Warfare Thesis in Action

James Lawrence Powell holds a Ph.D. in Geochemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, taught Geology at Oberlin College for over 20 years, served as Acting President of Oberlin, President of Franklin and Marshall College, President of Reed College, President of the Franklin Institute Science Museum in Philadelphia, and President and Director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History. President Reagan and later, President George H. W. Bush, appointed Powell to the National Science Board, where he served for 12 years. He is the author of eleven books and currently serves as Executive Director of the National Physical Science Consortium. James Lawrence Powell also believes in AGW (anthropogenic, or man-made, global warming).

Powell has created what some are calling the one chart that proves AGW. It is a pie chart comparing scientific papers about “global warming,” “global climate change,” or “climate change.” Powell has reviewed these papers and found that only a couple dozen of them, out of almost 14,000, reject AGW. So what can we conclude, Powell asks.

According to Powell, these papers demonstrate that there is a mountain of scientific evidence in favor of AGW and no convincing evidence against it. That those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. And that these two facts together mean that the so-called debate over global warming is an illusion, a hoax conjured up by a handful of apostate scientists and a misguided and sometimes colluding media, aided and abetted by funding from fossil fuel companies and right wing foundations.

An over-the-top caricature? No, I’m quoting from Powell’s site. For Powell it is all about the Warfare Thesis, with the truth-seeking scientists in their unstained clean white lab coats on the one side, and the unwashed, unruly superstitious mob fueled by sinister forces on the other side:

On the one side, we have a mountain of scientific evidence, on the other, ideology and arm-waving. On that basis, we are endangering our grandchildren’s future and pushing humanity toward the destruction of civilization.

I have no idea what Powell’s motives are, but given his background it would be surprising if Powell actually believed any of this. Perhaps so, but anyone vaguely familiar with the world of science knows that counting papers is not the way to scientific realism and truth. There are so many obvious, well known problems with Powell’s logic here it is difficult to know where to begin.

First, notice that Powell did not actually say that the 14,000 papers proved or demonstrated AGW. That’s because they don’t. Powell is an inside player and he knows not to make such a mistake.

In science, research programs tend to work within paradigms. Scientists are not forever questioning theories as the textbooks like to say; rather, they explore the details of the paradigm they are working within, whether or not they are true or make sense of the data. That’s a generalization, but in many fields it is often true.

If you look for papers with keywords such as “global warming,” “global climate change,” and “climate change,” as did Powell, then you’re going to find papers that are exploring AGW not questioning it.

That’s the way science works, and Powell of course knows this.

Imagine 50 years ago searching through papers about neo Darwinism and the New Synthesis and wondering whether the papers will be for or against evolution. That would be silly. The ratio would be at least as skewed as Powell’s pie chart.

But of course today we know that neo Darwinism is false. Mutations are not neutral, and the adaptation we observe is not slow and caused by the selection of blind variation. And even evolutionists agree that there must be some other mechanism to account for large-scale evolutionary change.

This is by no means an isolated example. The history of science is full of examples of paradigms gone wrong, masses of scientists who go along to get along, and non scientific influences. Social pressures, political pressures, funding pressures, career and prestige pressures—they are part of the job.

And no less so in the field of climatology where heavy-handed AGW zealots have engaged in political maneuvering, peer review manipulation, blackballing, and so forth.

Meanwhile AGW has not fared well on the science. To the point that serious thinkers are voicing concerns. The science is just not that simple.

But it never was about the science. As usual, this is not about the facts, it is about the narrative. Powell had that part right, and it is only getting stronger. Academics are calling for the incarceration of AGW skeptics, and powerful politicians, only a little less enraged, want malpractice suits. NASA scientist James Hansen told Congress that oil company CEOs “should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.” You can see more examples here, here.



It really doesn’t matter whether the Earth is cooling, warming, or maintaining an equilibrium, any scenario can be cast into the narrative of the good guys versus the bad guys. That narrative was nowhere more obvious than in yesterday’s Climate March in New York City where Leonardo DiCaprio refused to answer questions about his yacht and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. accused industrialists who do not agree with AGW of treason and said they should be imprisoned as war criminals. Likeminded politicians are “contempable human beings,” though the son of the late great Attorney General lamented that they could not be prosecuted.

What we are seeing are classic defamation tactics. Evolution’s Warfare Thesis has lit all kinds of fires and emotions are running high. With evolution there is no law, just narrative. Today it focuses on climate, but it could jump to any number of issues.

So is AGW true? I have no idea. But neither does Powell, Kennedy and the rest. And we’re not going to figure it out with vigilante justice fueled by pseudo science.

31 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Hey Joe, Thanks for the link. Here is link to izzit.org youtube channel. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUKsZgxyIZk&list=PLE2D21A29AF783395&index=2

      It's a good one for kids and adults.

      Delete
  2. I have no idea what Powell’s motives are, but given his background it would be surprising if Powell actually believed any of this.

    So despite the fact that you have no idea what his motives are you find it likely,( why else be surprised?) he has ulterior motives, whereas you find that questioning those interests who fund the Heartland Institute as to be an "An over-the-top caricature?"

    Funny how you only reserve skeptism for one side of scientific debate while claiming to hold no opinion. I wonder do you think it is even possible that the actions of man could change God's Creation?

    Perhaps so, but anyone vaguely familiar with the world of science knows that counting papers is not the way to scientific realism and truth.

    President of the Franklin Institute Science Museum in Philadelphia, and President and Director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History. President Reagan and later, President George H. W. Bush, appointed Powell to the National Science Board, where he served for 12 years. He is the author of eleven books and currently serves as Executive Director of the National Physical Science Consortium.

    Sounds like he is more than vaguely aware.

    Perhaps it would be helpful for you to show how the path to realism and truth is discovered. Obviously not from vast majority of climate scientists who seem to be mindless drones in your impartial dispassionate view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps someone should step up and demonstrate that the climate is so freaking sensitive that it responds to an increase of 200 parts per MILLION. Strange that no one has done so yet people are saying that the increase is the cause.

      The CO2 keeps increasing yet the temperature does not. Why is that?

      Delete
    2. Joe G: Perhaps someone should step up and demonstrate that the climate is so freaking sensitive that it responds to an increase of 200 parts per MILLION.

      Monatomic and homonuclear diatomic molecules are virtually unaffected by infrared energy; consequently, nitrogen, oxygen and argon are not greenhouse gases. Therefore, for purposes of the greenhouse effect, we can ignore the vast majority of the atmosphere.

      Greenhouse gases, those that absorb and emit infrared radiation, include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone, each with its own thermal footprint. Carbon dioxide constitutes about a fourth of the greenhouse effect. Small changes can have a significant effect on global mean surface temperature.

      Delete
    3. Greenhouses do not work via this "greenhouse effect" and if you were correct then the temperature should continually increase, yet it isn't.

      Delete
    4. Joe G: Greenhouses do not work via this "greenhouse effect"

      No, they don't.

      Joe G: if you were correct then the temperature should continually increase, yet it isn't.

      Most of the heat is absorbed by the oceans. While overall heat increases monotonically, the atmosphere and oceans exchange heat chaotically.
      http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

      Delete
    5. Zachriel:
      Most of the heat is absorbed by the oceans.

      That is the excuse, however scientists have refuted that.

      Delete
    6. We cited data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. You waved your hands.

      Delete
    7. Joe:
      The CO2 keeps increasing yet the temperature does not. Why is that?


      So if the temperature of the heat absorbing elements of the climate showed an increase you would be convinced?

      Delete
    8. vel:
      So if the temperature of the heat absorbing elements of the climate showed an increase you would be convinced?

      If the temperature increased with the CO2 increase I would be convinced. However that ain't what is happening.

      Delete
    9. Zachriel:
      We cited data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. You waved your hands.

      You will believe anything. Not my problem.

      Delete
    10. Joe G: You will believe anything. Not my problem.

      In other words all you have is handwaving.

      Most of the heat is absorbed by the oceans. While overall heat increases monotonically, the atmosphere and oceans exchange heat chaotically.
      http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

      Delete
    11. Geez Zachriel I provided a link and if you had actually followed it you would have read that your scenario has been debunked. IOW all YOU have is your gullibility.

      Delete
    12. Joe G: I provided a link and if you had actually followed it you would have read that your scenario has been debunked.

      Um, we posted data on 0-2000 meters. The Wunsch paper concerns the thermal variability
      in the deep ocean, below 2000 meters.



      Delete
    13. The Sun warms the oceans, Zachriel.

      Delete
  3. How about this one Joe? " Researchers led by Yair Rosenthal at Rutgers University reconstructed temperatures in one part of the Pacific Ocean and found that its middle depths have been warming some 15 times faster over the past 60 years than at any other time over the past 10,000 years. "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And they linked that to CO2? Nope

      Delete
    2. You ask why the atmosphere had paused if the Co2 was rising, water is well know to absorb heat.Where is the heat warming the ocean coming from?

      Delete
    3. And yet the water hypothesis has been found wanting. The heat that is warming the oceans comes from the Sun, duh.

      Delete
    4. True, what is the cause of the increase? Is the sun hotter now than it was 60 ago?

      Delete
    5. Cleaner air has allowed more of the Sun's rays to reach the surface:

      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00074.1

      Delete
    6. Joe, then why the pause? Where did the heat go?

      Delete
  4. http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/22/are-the-deep-oceans-cooling/

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/why-ipcc-exaggerates-greenhouse-forcing.html

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/01/trenberth-debunks-himself-oceans-didnt.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All three links are apparently based on this paper: Wunsch & Heimbach, Bidecadal Thermal Changes in the Abyssal Ocean, 2013. Wunsch has said, "We never assert that global warming and warming of the oceans are not occurring - we do find an ocean warming, particularly in the upper regions."

      Delete
  5. Or this

    "Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends

    Kevin Cowtan1,* andRobert G. Way2
    Article first published online: 12 FEB 2014

    DOI: 10.1002/qj.2297

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/19/on-cowtan-and-ray-2013-coverage-bias-in-the-hadcrut4-temperature-series-and-its-impact-on-recent-temperature-trends/

      Delete
  6. Dr Hunter:
    Powell it is all about the Warfare Thesis,


    This is confusing, does your religion have something to say about climate change ?

    with the truth-seeking scientists in their unstained clean white lab coats on the one side

    Why would climatologists wear lab coats? Are not seeking the scientific truth? Using your assumption one?

    and the unwashed, unruly superstitious mob fueled by sinister forces on the other side:

    I expect they consider their ideological opponents to be clever, and well washed . I love your populism rant though, sort of Palinesque.

    Play the victim card all you want, but the fact remains, people who make money by selling products that create CO2 lose money with CO2 restrictions.

    People who sell products that create CO2 do not like to lose money

    People who sell products that create CO2 fund climate change opposition.

    Again your impartiality is in peril, apparently funding issues only are a problem for scientists who believe climate change is occurring

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CO2 is not the issue. Plants are thriving and we need plants to survive.

      Delete