Wow........talk about food for thought. Let's put a plug in all those
volcanoes as well. Good stuff, especially for a Friday.
Best regards,
Leo
Leo M. Higgins III, Ph.D.
Vice President, Technical Support Operations
ASAT, Inc.
3755 Capital of Texas Highway, Suite 100
Austin, Texas 78704
office phone 512-383-4593
mobile 512-423-2002
[log in to unmask]
www.asat.com
The information contained in this electronic message is CUSTOMER/SUPPLIER
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended only for the use of the
individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution and copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the
sender by electronic mail. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: EnviroNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Davy, Gordon
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [EN] Greenland's glaciers melt rate increasing
Brian Ellis has expressed his anger at the notion that consensus is not
the way that science gets done, and in particular, anger that anyone
would question the notion that global warming is due to human activity.
I think it worth noting that anyone's reaction to a person questioning
the validity of the second law of thermodynamics would be not anger but
amusement or possibly disbelief. So it is worth asking Brian to explain
why he got angry. (At least I assume that he was angry, since that is
what the use of expletives usually connotes.) Maybe he is concerned that
challenges by unbelievers will delay implementation of the highly
restrictive (and highly unpleasant) measures that would be needed if the
true believers are right.
Brian cites how few people question the consensus that global warming is
due to human activity. Given the intense pressures that can be brought
to bear on scientists who raise such questions, it should be suspected
that there are many others who don't believe it but find it inexpedient
to say so publicly. Let's take a look at some of the examples Crichton,
in the same speech, cites of how those who questioned the consensus were
treated.
* In the case of preventing childbirth fever, "the consensus took one
hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite
the efforts of the prominent 'skeptics' around the world, skeptics who
were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of
women."
* In the case of pellagra, "southern States disliked the idea of poor
diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required.
They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result - despite a twentieth
century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light."
* In the case of continental drift, "it took the consensus fifty
years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees."
* "Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus
is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is
not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that
E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles
away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."
Who believes that such intolerance of those who question the consensus
has stopped? The Nobel prize in medicine last year went to two
researchers who twenty-five years ago challenged the consensus that
stomach ulcers are caused by stress and diet. It took them ten years to
get their ideas accepted. One of the two went so far as to deliberately
infect himself with the true causative factor, a bacterium, and then
cure the resulting ulcer, just to get the majority of experts to take
his work seriously. Global warming seems to have far more in common with
these examples than with the second law or the distance to the sun.
Given the sorry history of consensus science, Brian's anger with those
who don't share his beliefs seems unwarranted. The goal of science
should be truth, not orthodoxy.
But let's think further about this. Even assuming that earth's climate
is getting warmer, on what basis do people conclude that this is the
result of human activity? They assign the entire effect to the recent
increase in atmospheric CO2 and further assert that humans are to blame
for that. They assert that atmospheric dust and water vapor, and solar
radiation, have not changed significantly. They seem to think they know
pretty accurately how much the concentration of CO2 has increased in the
past two centuries, and how much global warming that has caused. Now,
even assuming that they are correct, we need to ask
a) How much of an increase in the mean content of water (also a
greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere would it take to equal the effects of
that increase,
b) How much of a decrease in mean dust content of the atmosphere would
it take to equal the effects of that increase,
c) How much of an increase in mean solar radiation would it take to
equal the effects of that increase, and
d) How do those answers compare with our ability to track such changes
since the ice age? (This last question was discussed by Chuck Dolci in
his posting.)
I certainly don't know the answers. But if, as I suspect, the answer to
any of a), b) and c) should turn out to be a few parts per thousand,
then saying that we have data to show that atmospheric water or dust, or
solar radiation, has not changed significantly sounds unconvincing. I
could then argue that despite the percentage change, an increase of less
than one part per thousand in atmospheric CO2 is not significant because
compared to the uncertainties and possible fluctuations in the mean
values of atmospheric water and dust and of solar radiation it is
trivial.
Just imagine. It might turn out to be chutzpah of global proportions to
say that human activity is the reason that the earth is warming, and
that human activity could reverse it. If it is true that the earth is
warming, and it should also be true that CO2 is not the most important
contributor to that warming, then no matter how draconian the reductions
in anthropogenic CO2 production were imposed on people all over the
world, the earth would still continue to warm up.
No doubt some would demand further privations rather than admit that
they had bought into a just-so story. By the time that it was proven
that there are more important causes to global warming, and that those
causes are outside of human control, today's activists who are so sure
that they are right would probably all be dead. Should some still be
alive, they might be in peril of becoming dead quickly for having
foisted such a huge and unsuccessful experiment on over six billion
people. At least no one is claiming - yet - that tsunamis and hurricanes
are due to human activity.
Most people - especially opinion leaders - like having answers a whole
lot more than they like not having answers. That's how superstition and
just-so stories get created and propagated. That preference can drive
some to assert more than their data warrant, or even to fudge the data.
It is especially hard to be objective for those who have a financial or
reputation stake in the outcome, or who have tendencies toward altruism
or collectivism.
Gordon Davy
Baltimore, MD
410-993-7399
|
