Climate Change & Prohibition

"Decades from now, I think historians are likely to look back on the hysteria over climate change today the way we, today, look back on Prohibition: as a comic misadventure that shows the harsh limits of political enthusiasm directed against basic facts of nature and society.

"However—and here’s the complicating part—whether we’ll avoid committing the folly of embracing the energy equivalent of Prohibition is still undecided. I’m thinking that we won’t, but it may be a close-run thing for a very simple and elemental reason and that’s the environmental movement, which is deeply authoritarian at its core, has an unquenchable will to power that cannot be satisfied and will not be denied."

- Professor Steven F. Hayward, Pepperdine University

Feynman on Questions

"I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned."

- Richard Feynman

The Ignorance of Experts

In a 1996 talk to high-school science teachers, the great physicist Richard Feynman said:

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts ... If they say to you, 'Science has shown such and such,' you might ask, 'How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?'  

"It should not be 'science has shown' but 'this experiment, this effect, has shown.' And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments--but be patient and listen to all the evidence--to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.

Source: "What is Science?" Fotuva.org

Core Concept: Falsification

Karl Popper

Some concepts are so basic, they are easy to forget. We know them and have internalized them to the extent we find it hard to consciously recall and articulate them. From time to time, I come across one of these concepts in my reading. I will now make a note of them here.

My first entry is FALSIFICATION. I came across it when reviewing Shane Parrish's "Mental Models." Falsification is categorized as "General Thinking Concept" No. 2.

Parrish writes:

"[P]opularized by the philosopher Karl Popper, the modern scientific enterprise operates under the principle of falsification: A method is termed scientific if it can be stated in such a way that a certain defined result would cause it to be false. Pseudo-knowledge and pseudo-science operate and propagate by being unfalsifiable – as with astrology, we are unable to prove them either correct or incorrect because of the conditions under which they would be shown false are never stated."

Falsification is one reason I feel comfortable criticizing anthropogenic climate change even though I am not a scientist. Although we are often told the matter is "settled science," I have never seen any evidence that its doomsday predictions are scientific in the Popper sense. That is, I have not read about "a certain defined result" that would cause the key claims to be disproved or "the conditions under which they would be shown false."

Now, maybe these conditions exist and just aren't being reported. Or maybe climate science today is closer to pseudo-science than science. As a confessed Denier, I obviously lean toward the latter possibility. Indeed, I have seen it reported that earlier climate models failed to predict current temperatures (i.e. were falsified). Moreover, Al Gore famously predicted we had 10 years until climate catastrophe – more than 11 years ago. Yes, Gore is a politician and not a scientist. But he plays a scientist in his movies.

Whether climate science meets the falsification test or not, this concept should always be kept at the forefront of any scientific discussion, especially ones as politicized as climate change.

Benefits of More CO2

"The greatest benefit from climate change comes not from temperature change but from carbon dioxide itself. It is not pollution, but the raw material from which plants make carbohydrates and thence proteins and fats. As it is an extremely rare trace gas in the air — less than 0.04 per cent of the air on average — plants struggle to absorb enough of it. On a windless, sunny day, a field of corn can suck half the carbon dioxide out of the air. Commercial greenhouse operators therefore pump carbon dioxide into their greenhouses to raise plant growth rates.

" The increase in average carbon dioxide levels over the past century, from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent of the air, has had a measurable impact on plant growth rates. It is responsible for a startling change in the amount of greenery on the planet. As Dr Ranga Myneni of Boston University has documented, using three decades of satellite data, 31 per cent of the global vegetated area of the planet has become greener and just 3 per cent has become less green. This translates into a 14 per cent increase in productivity of ecosystems and has been observed in all vegetation types.

"Dr Randall Donohue and colleagues of the CSIRO Land and Water department in Australia also analysed satellite data and found greening to be clearly attributable in part to the carbon dioxide fertilisation effect. Greening is especially pronounced in dry areas like the Sahel region of Africa, where satellites show a big increase in green vegetation since the 1970s.

"It is often argued that global warming will hurt the world’s poorest hardest. What is seldom heard is that the decline of famines in the Sahel in recent years is partly due to more rainfall caused by moderate warming and partly due to more carbon dioxide itself: more greenery for goats to eat means more greenery left over for gazelles, so entire ecosystems have benefited."

 - Matt Ridley, "Why climate change is good for the world," The Spectator, 10/19/2013

Meteorologists & Weather Models

"Part of meteorologists’ reluctance to talk about the climate stems from the treacherous tools of their trade. Meteorologists learn very quickly that weather models are messy. Some no doubt sour on finicky climate models because of this experience. If short-term weather models make mistakes, it may seem reasonable to assume that a model projecting into the next century is ridiculous."

- "Climate Evangelists Are Taking Over Your Local Weather Forecast," Bloomberg, 4/26/17

[This is what I call the "Weatherman Problem."]

The '97 Percent' Fallacy

In Madsen Pirie's excellent book, How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic, I came across a interesting entry under the heading: "Vercundiam, argumentum ad."

This is the logical fallacy known as "appeal to (false) authority." It literally means "argument to modesty." The Latin root gave us the archaic English word "verecund," meaning "bashful, modest." I infer this connects with the logical fallacy because the victim of an ad verecundiam attack is supposed to submit, feeling bashful, when the implied authority is brought to bear.

However: "While it is perfectly in order to cite as supporting witness someone who has specialized knowledge of the field concerned, it is a fallacy to suppose that an expert in one field can lend support in another," Professor Pirie writes. "Unless he has special expertise, he is a false authority."

He gives an example with commentary:

Hundreds of leading scientists reject evolution.

(Close examination shows few, if any, whose expertise is in evolutionary biology.) 

In the Wikipedia entry for this fallacy, there is a great quote from the late Carl Sagan. "One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority,'" he said. "Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."

With all this talk of science, my mind immediately went to a common claim of global warmists. A tweet from President Obama in May of 2014 is representative: "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Everyone from leaders at NASA to Bill Nye the Science Guy has repeated a version of this statistic. However, as Professor Richard Tol has pointed out, the 12,000 papers underlying this figure include a large number by scientists who don't specialize in the "detection and attribution of climate change."

Climate scientist Roy Spencer put it more directly in a 2007 Op-Ed:

Contrary to popular accounts, very few scientists in the world – possibly none – have a sufficiently thorough, 'big picture' understanding of the climate system to be relied upon for a prediction of the magnitude of global warming. To the public, we all might seem like experts, but the vast majority of us work on only a small portion of the problem.

Like non-biologists commenting on evolution, these scientists lack the authority to conclude that global warming is "real, man-made and dangerous." Thus, I conclude the '97 percent' claim is fallacious on the grounds that it is an argumentum ad verecundiam.

Nature Loves CO2

"Significantly, about 50% of [the CO2] we produce is sucked out of the atmosphere by nature, mostly through photosynthesis. Nature loves the stuff. CO2 is the elixir of life on Earth. Imagine the howls of protest there would be if we were destroying atmospheric CO2, rather than creating more of it."

- Dr. Roy Spencer, climate scientist, My Global Warming Skepticism for Dummies

Science is Highly Skewed

“Science isn’t the sum of what scientists think, but ... a procedure that is highly skewed. Once you debunk something, it is now wrong ... Had science operated by majority consensus we would be still stuck in the Middle Ages.”

- Nassim Taleb

(Source: The Most Intolerant Wins)

The Case for Global Warming Skepticism

Like President Trump and politics these days, global warming is constantly in my face. It seems every book and many of the articles I read discuss or refer to it in some way. What I read about, I think about, which is why global warming is a topic I continue to post about.

The other day, I came up with a short list of reasons why I am skeptical about the current beliefs surrounding the issue. Call it my case for global warming skepticism. Here's the summary:

1. It's too complex. Multiple data sets (differing land, sea, air and space temperature readings) and factors (variations in solar activity, cloud cover, forcings, etc.) require complicated models to get the desired evidence of looming catastrophe. See this question and the answer by Princeton professor William Happer for an example of how prediction models are "tuned."

2. It's too uncertain. There are 55 IPCC prediction models covering a range of possibilities. This is not to mention the "Weatherman Problem," which is that no weatherman can accurately predict the weather beyond a few days -- and often he can't even get tomorrow's weather right.

3. Key points don't hold up well under scrutiny.  See my Basic Questions About Global Warming.

4. There are clear agendas at play. Unless you are politically biased to believe Republicans are anti-science, it is more than passing strange that a supposedly scientific issue is a partisan issue. It's not every day a former Democratic candidate for president with no science background wins an Academy Award for a documentary about a scientific topic. Once you research how global warming became the No. 1 environmental issue of the day, however, the mystery is dispelled. In a June 2007 exploration titled, "Digging up the roots of the IPCC", Tony Gilland shows how the "UN's all-powerful climate change panel is ... a deeply political organisation that was born out of disenchantment with progress." Add in the fact that global warming is the biggest driver of fund-raising for the top environmental groups, and the need for skepticism should be obvious to a rational person.

5. There is too much agreement for it to be real science. Real scientists don't talk like global warming alarmists do. Specifically, the idea of a consensus is unknown to science. I could elaborate, but Professor Richard Tol and author Michael Crichton did a much better job than I ever could. "Consensus is irrelevant in science," wrote Tol in a famous op-ed in The Guardian debunking the 97% consensus claim. "There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong." Crichton was even more emphatic. "Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus," he said in his famous Caltech lecture, Aliens Cause Global Warming. "Consensus is the business of politics ... In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."

I may add to this post in the future. Global warming seems to be a topic I am continually rethinking through.

Some Basic Questions About Global Warming

The theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is premised on certainty. Scientists are said to be certain the planet is warming, certain that man is the cause and certain the results will be catastrophic.

Yet when I ask even basic questions, I encounter a lot of uncertainty. Here are seven such questions:

1. What is the current global temperature?

2. A hundred years ago, we didn’t have satellites or ocean monitoring. There were far fewer weather stations, and the technology was much less sophisticated than it is today. So how do we know what the correct global temperature was back then?

3. A hundred years from now, our energy technology will be completely different than it is today. So how can we correctly predict what the global temperature will be?

Related question: Meteorologists don’t understand the weather well enough to forecast accurately beyond a few days. Many times, even those forecasts are wrong. So why do we think we can accurately predict the weather decades from now?

4. What percentage of warming is attributable to burning fossil fuels vs. natural variation?

5. What is the optimal global temperature? Is it warmer or cooler than it is now?

6. What is the optimal amount of atmospheric CO2? Is it more or less than we have now?

7. What would it take for us to stop the planet from warming? How likely is it that we would take that action?

Adams on Catastrophe

"Some people deal with the uncertainty around the climate prediction models by saying that even if there is only a tiny risk of global catastrophe, we still need to do all we can to avoid it. But that isn’t as wise as it first sounds.

"Your life is full of worst-case scenarios that you ignore because you have to. You can’t live a life that manages to the worst-case scenario or else you would never have sex, apply for a job, or drive your car. The worst-case scenario for you EVERY SINGLE DAY involves you getting zika, AIDS, and bird flu right before the brakes on your car fail and you plunge into a ravine."

 - Scott Adams

My Position on Global Warming

Want to debate global warming with me? Assuming you've made it past my four screening questions, here's my position.

PHILOSOPHY

Let me begin by stating my environmental philosophy, which should reduce the likelihood of any ad hominem attacks (e.g. "you're a dirty denier who wants to trash the planet!"). I believe that:

1. Pollution is bad. No one wants to live with its effects.

2. Nature is beautiful and should be preserved as much as possible.

3. Any truly advanced and enlightened civilization should strive to live in harmony with its environment and do the least damage to it possible.

4. It's a bad idea to mess with Mother Nature. Doing anything that could significantly alter our environment is dangerous because we don't really understand, and can't control, the consequences.

GIVENS

Next, let's get the basics out of the way in order to establish what we aren't going to be debating about. I stipulate that:

1. The globe is getting warmer.

2. Human activity is likely a significant reason.

3. Those who think human activity is not a significant reason could be right (see CONSENSUS IS BS), but they haven't provided enough compelling evidence to make their case.

4. As a result, we have to operate as if the first two points are givens.

EVERYTHING ELSE

Everything else about the global warming issue, and much of what is really being debated these days, is beyond what is cited above. For instance, Armageddon is not assured. That is, there is no consensus that we are hurtling toward global catastrophe. That is simply the most extreme potential outcome among several potential outcomes, and it is based on computer models that can't possibly replicate reality.

I call this the "Weatherman Problem" because it is easily falsified by the fact no weatherman can accurately predict the weather beyond a few days -- and often he can't even get tomorrow's weather right. I'm a devotee of several weather-dependent sports (skydiving, scuba diving), so trust me: I know.

CONSENSUS IS BS

Speaking of consensus: Consensus is bullshit. There is no such thing in science. There are only hypotheses, theories and facts. All conclusions are open to falsification, and no scientist would ever suggest something as complex as understanding global climate is "settled science" or any other phrase politicians and activists like to use to shame dissenters.

Here's some evidence that consensus is especially BS when it comes to global climate:

• Go online and try to find a clear answer to the question: What is the current global temperature? You can't do it. That's because there is no consensus on what source of data most accurately reflects the true global temperature. There are weather-station readings, satellite readings and ocean readings. Each produces different data.
• One solution to the above problem is to come up with a formula that takes all sources of data into account. The problem? There is no consensus as to how to do that. Different agencies calculate differently, based on various methods for combining the data, and global temperature is always expressed as a range because of this fact (and the margin of error).
• There is no consensus as to what time period is the correct time period to use as a baseline for global temperature. Different charts plot temperature anomalies against different reference periods. 
• This last point raises an important question: What is the optimal global temperature? There is no consensus on that point. 

WHAT TO DO

The most important question when it comes to global warming is what to do about it. Here there are many possible answers, all of them worth consideration and none of them falsified by science (yet). These options include:

• Do nothing because Mother Nature will take care of the problem (see Mt. Pinatubo) 
• Do nothing because technology will take care of the problem (Crichton) 
• Do nothing because there is nothing we can do that would have a big enough impact 
• Do nothing, at least for now, because a warmer climate is actually a net benefit (Tol)
• Do something, but only after addressing several more important global priorities (Lomborg) 
• Do something dramatic via government initiative (Obama, Gore) 
• Do something dramatic via public-private initiatives (Gates) 
• Do something dramatic via private initiative (Musk)

I'm begging the question. If I can actually get you to concede that all of these possibilities are "worth consideration," then our debate should become just a conversation among reasonable people.

Before We Debate: Global Warming

Want to debate global warming with me? First, you'll have to answer these four questions:

1. Do you believe that global warming should be a top five global priority?

2. If so, here is a conviction check: What if the solution to the problem is a 20% tax on non-renewable energy, non-electric cars and air travel? Would you voluntarily pay that tax?

3. If so, what are the main reasons why?

4. What would I have to show to falsify those reasons?

If you had to admit your answer to No. 1 is "no," we have no reason to debate. In essence, we agree.

If you made it to No. 2 but then answered "no," we also have no reason to debate. I've found that debating with those who lack conviction is ultimately pointless unless you like to argue for the sake of argument. Actually, I sometimes like to argue for the sake of argument, so depending on the day I may choose to engage you. But just so you know, I won't take your position very seriously.

Of course, it's possible you are convicted about GW but want other people to pay for it. That's good to know. I personally have no interest in debating with you if that's the case. Your ideas are likely to be unbounded by reality. Frankly, I think answering "yes" to No. 1 and "no" to No. 2 is intellectual fraud.

If you made it past No. 2, having a clear picture from the answers to No. 3 and No. 4 should help guide our debate in a more rational direction.

For example, some people are no doubt convicted about global warming because they believe Armageddon is imminent if we do not take aggressive action. When pressed for the basis for their hypothesis, they have to rely on climate models. To falsify their hypothesis, then, I just need to demonstrate that climate models have been inaccurate in their predictions thus far. I can work with that.

Side note: This is much better than where these debates tend to go, which is the activist side claiming people like me (those who entertain skepticism about GW) are denying that warming is happening or that man's carbon emissions are the cause.

Still want to debate? Check out my position on global warming.