Tuesday, July 05, 2005
17,800 "scientists": Over at Tapped, we're encouraged to read an article by Chris Mooney (" Mann Hunt", The American Prospect Online) which reports on Representative Joe Barton's heavy-handed tactics against a scientist that claims global warming is the result of human activities. In that article other players are mentioned, including Dr. Harold M. Koenig, president of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy - the outfit that presented Barton with an award this April for his support of "rational, science-based thinking and policy-making. Mooney's article goes on to note that Koenig wrote to the Washington Times in November 2003 to throw cold water on the global warming claims. Koenig: "... a letter signed by 17,800 scientists contends "there is no convincing scientific evidence" that human activity is causing "catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. "Who said that? The letter came from the Science Advisory Board (SAB), which appears to be a business-friendly organization. But now to the details. Who are these scientists that signed the letter? From the website you can find out in general terms who they are - but only in terms of job classification: Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Staff Scientist, Principal Investigator, Professor/Teacher, etc. Apparently grad students are considered scientists by this outfit. Can we learn more about who makes up various panels and boards over at the SAB? No. They say: In order to facilitate the frank exchange of ideas, we have agreed not to reveal the identity, participation, or individual responses of our members. We have found that anonymity encourages members to comment more freely on most topics ... So who knows who is signing these letters and how qualified they are to comment on an issue? NOTE: We initially thought the letter-of-17,800 was the one John Stossel promoted in May 2003 (our post) which was completely ridiculous. That letter came from the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine and the experts on global warming ranged from gynocologists to dentists to ophthalmologists to machine tool developers. At least we're pretty sure it's a different petition. But there are some peculiar similarities: Both signed by 17,000 "scientists" and both reported as claiming "no convincing ... evidence" of human-caused global warming.
posted by Quiddity at 7/05/2005 02:03:00 PM
6 comments
In science, anonymous opinions mean nothing. If you can't establish your training and research background, who cares what you think?
VKW
In science, training and research background are equally meaningless. The only thing that matters in science is reproducability. That's the definition of science. The problem with global warming theories is that they are untestable and irreproducable.
That doesn't make them true or false, but that does make them unproven theories.
Science is certainly not about degrees, "research background", and science is especially not about polling scientists. Research and degrees are all about individual reputations and politics. They are the non-scientific baggage of the scientific community. Polls are just irrelevant. If you were to poll a group of scientists at a Catholic university, for instance, you would probably find that a majority of the scientists polled (and there might be some very respected scientists in that group with great training and research backgrounds) believed in God. That would hardly establish the existance of God scientifically, now would it?
Science is all about reproducability. nothing else matters. Global warming is a non-testable, non-reproducable theory. It is not science.
6:56am - snicker. Nice try. Now read the adult version of scientific epistemology. (hint: "predictive" not "reproducible")
There seems to be some ambiguity as to the term "global warming".
Some take it literally and simply; is the Earth getting warmer? Some take it to mean a more comprehensive, systematic, epoch changing event.
The second meaning includes the first as a subset, so lets break-down the second into its subsets:
1) Is the Eartn warming?
YES ... this is a simple fact, all we have to do is look at the historical record.
2) Is the warming a natural cucylical occurance or is it caused by humans.
If humans caused the warming, it is because of the carbon dioxide that humans have pumped into the atmosphere since the beginning of the inductrial revolution in Europe and North America. The carbon dioxide levels do match the temperature rise. Is this a coincidence or a cause? That's the big question? It seems likely.
3) What will be the consequences of global warming?
There is speculation based on known smaller scale examples. Shifts in the growing seasons and locations of grain belts. More frequent and more sever weather systems: hurricanes, blizzards, tornados, etc.
4) Can humans ameliorate or reverse the effects.
Probably not. It's too late. We are probably beyond the point of no return.
"1) Is the Eartn warming?
YES ... this is a simple fact, all we have to do is look at the historical record."
The record is quite clear that "global warming" is a fact.
"2) Is the warming a natural cucylical occurance or is it caused by humans.
If humans caused the warming, it is because of the carbon dioxide that humans have pumped into the atmosphere since the beginning of the inductrial revolution in Europe and North America. The carbon dioxide levels do match the temperature rise. Is this a coincidence or a cause? That's the big question? It seems likely."
I would like to add that "global warming" could be both due to natural causes _and_ human input.
Even so, I would think it would be to our benefit to reduce our part of the contribution to warming.
"3) What will be the consequences of global warming?
There is speculation based on known smaller scale examples. Shifts in the growing seasons and locations of grain belts. More frequent and more sever weather systems: hurricanes, blizzards, tornados, etc."
These are all true, with emphasis on increased severity of wx systems.
"4) Can humans ameliorate or reverse the effects.
Probably not. It's too late. We are probably beyond the point of no return."
It is feared that, because climate models indicate global climate seems to stabilize around "nodes", if we allow this global warming to continue or at least do not try to slow the process, that we may end up in a "node" somewhat hostile to a flourishing global economy, perhaps a global desert climate, or worse.
"That letter came from the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine and the experts on global warming ranged from gynocologists to dentists to ophthalmologists to machine tool developers." I didn't see those listed, but OISM mentions physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists. They also list scientists with fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences. A total of 7677 in those categories. At least as convincing as those scientists on the pro-human-caused-warming side.
|
