Five Minutes To Midnight
(the stifling of scientific inquiry)
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Liberals — Comments (37) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
General Secretary Gorbachev was forced to "tear down this wall," but we are told that it is "five minutes to midnight" anyway. You see, Bush didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol. (The Senate rejected it, but that's of no moment.) The board of directors of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (BAS) have set our clocks:
"The dangers posed by climate change are nearly as dire as those posed by nuclear weapons. The effects may be less dramatic in the short term than the destruction that could be wrought by nuclear explosions, but over the next three to four decades climate change could cause irremediable harm to the habitats upon which human societies depend for survival."
BAS sponsor Lawrence M. Krauss, professor of theoretical physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University, hisses: "In these dangerous times, scientists have a responsibility to speak truth to power!" (Those of us familiar with that meaningless phrase know from where he is coming.)
But anyway, the capitalists are heating up the planet, we're told, and everything is going to melt and we're all going to die if the workers are not soon given control of the means of production.
Not exactly, says academic scientist James Lewis in rebuttal:
Read More…
The human-caused global warming hypothesis is completely model-dependent. We can't directly observe cars and cows turning up the earth thermostat. Whatever the human contribution there may be to climate constitutes just a few signals among many hundreds or thousands.
All our models of the earth climate are incomplete. That's why they keep changing, and that's why climate scientists keep finding surprises. As Rummy used to say, there are a ton of "unknown unknowns" out there. The real world is full of x's, y's and z's, far more than we can write little models about. How do you extract the human contribution from a vast number of unknowns?
That's why constant testing is needed, and why it is so frustrating to do frontier science properly. [emphasis mine]
Who is worrying about doing this sort of science properly? There are people to frighten, money to be made, political careers to be furthered, and ownership of means of production to be transferred. Marx wrote that "the struggle of class against class is a political struggle." The unproven "science" of global warming is about the struggle of poor nations against the wealthy nations. There is no cooperation in it, no time for diplomacy,
And so the main problem to be found with James Lewis's arguments is that he's using a pseudonym. Why would a real scientist, unashamed of his views, hide behind a nom de plume?
Well, "Lewis" is a blogger, and some bloggers, especially academics and professionals, use pseudonyms for protection.
Protection against dangerous – nay!, disgusting reprehensible shackles like this:
The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.
The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.
The Holocaust was a genuine human atrocity, while this "manmade catastrophic global warming" is a politically-inspired hypothesis. Heidi Cullen is comparing the systematic slaughter of millions of Jews and others described as "undesirable" by twisted and evil regime to those who'd advocate scientific inquiry. Hypotheses are to be questioned, proven, not blindly accepted in pursuit of a political goal. Any legitimate scientist, I imagine, holds this concept dear.
Dr. Lawrence "Speaking Truth to Power" Krauss, cited above in support of five 'til midnight, wrote an essay last September: Beware Government’s Creeping Censorship of Scientific Inquiry. Indeed. But, of course, he was writing about "government restrictions on the use of embryonic stem cells," when that's not even the debate. The question he should have been discussing was whether or not taxpayers should be forced to pay for such experiments. But does he advocate censorship of scientific inquiry regarding global warming? Who knows?
Either way, it's Five Minutes To Midnight, folks. It's a cute gimmick, and we'll all hopefully be scared of gremlins in the closet soon and give up our private property. It's a great media story: Scientists predict capitalist doom! Read all about it.
« Do Nothing Dem Congress Slow-Bleeding US Auto Industry — Comments (46) | African-American leaders slow to warm up to Obama — Comments (40) »
Five Minutes To Midnight 37 Comments (0 topical, 37 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...as it was buried a little bit deep in the story:
The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming.
Of course, liberals are the anti-"thought police" and believe in free thinking.
Don't they?
If anyone should be "stripped of their scientific certification," it is the bozos at the Weather Channel who come up with their horribly unreliable forecasts. They seem to be the absolute worse place to go for a forecast. I stopped using them (and the outlets that regurgitate their predictions) years ago.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
They presume to be able to tell us what will happen in one hundred years.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Weather Underground is a superior website to weather.com in just about every way. And I say this as a former employee of weather.com.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
That Case Western Reserve University was somehow partially behind these shenanigans?
Don't mind me, I'm just gloating. Ya know, ten years ago, that was a great school... what the heck happened?
"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."
Based on my readings in the media, and on blogs of all political stripes, it seems there is a significant portion of the American population that accepts the idea that the globe is warming.
Why and by how much the globe is warming is something that fewer people seem to agree on. Fair enough.
But, if all these people accept the globe is warming, isn't it our duty to, instead of laughing this off, to 1) seek to find out the best we can HOW this is happening; 2) seek to find out the best we can WHAT, if anything, we can to arrest this situation; and/or 3) seek to find out the best we can the EFFECTS of warming so that we can best prepare ourselves politically and economically.
Granted, there is unknown upon unknown when it comes to warming, but if one accepts, in general at least, that warming is taking place, then serious thought and action based on that acceptance should follow. After all, even a relatively minor change in global climate is sure to play ruinious games with world economic and political systems.
If, on the other hand, you don't believe warming is taking place either through natural or man-made causes--or a combination of both--I guess you are off the hook, right?
Comments such as this strike me as silly and naive, though: "Either way, it's Five Minutes To Midnight, folks. It's a cute gimmick, and we'll all hopefully be scared of gremlins in the closet soon and give up our private property. It's a great media story: Scientists predict capitalist doom! Read all about it."
The press loves such cutesy sloganeering.
If there be global warming, can we determine that such is not a natural occurrence? Can we determine if the Earth will eventual cool? Can we be certain that it will continue to warm unabated and destroy all and sundry? What is causing this? Should we stop the world from going through its natural cycles? Shouldn't we be concerned with what the Earth itself is doing to its environment though such as volcanic activity? How do we stop the lava before we all die?
It is "silly and naive" to make definite pronouncements about untested hypothesis and misguided assumptions? That is what these scientists are doing.
The sky is not falling just because a few people write papers saying that it is and threaten to plug there ears and stomp their feet until everyone is forced to agree. It's science, man, not a universal hissy fit.
which is actually closer to reality than your intended syntax, I will respond. You said, in reference to "a significant portion of the American population":
"But, if all these people accept the globe is warming, isn't it our duty to, instead of laughing this off, to 1) seek to find out the best we can HOW this is happening; 2) seek to find out the best we can WHAT, if anything, we can to arrest this situation; and/or 3) seek to find out the best we can the EFFECTS of warming so that we can best prepare ourselves politically and economically."
1. It is happening because journalists as a group are a woefully ignorant tribe that chants whatever the Priests of the Left declare as the Lesson of the Day.
2. Arrest the Priests, arrest the journalists. Convict them of Stupidity. They have already confessed.
3. Turn up the AC
But in short, don't worry your little head because none of the Global Warming models have factored in the effects of the Islamic Nuclear Sword of Allah coming soon to a city near you.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
about this whole debate is that ideology seems to trump science among the "man is evil and is to blame" group. I think the earth is warming, but why? I don't know. And no matter what the Gore wing of the scientific community say, there is no consensus on the cause. But when science becomes a tool of a particular political ideology and brooks no disagreement or counter-hypothesis, I find that very disturbing.
I can roll a die 10 times and come up with the number 5 three times instead of the expected 1.666. So clearly, the 5 side of the die is getting heavier and I must try to rebalance the die, right?
That's the kind of data we have on climate. Lousy data from a split second in the existence of the earth's climate. So I won't say it is getting warmer. There's a lot of random noise out there. Set your time frame to 30 years (all we have decent, reliable data for) and all you see is the random noise.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
not go off half-cocked on the "unknowns".
National Security
Energy Independence
Immigration Enforcement and Reform
Checking Government Growth and Spending
Wife's Honeydo List
Football
My Neice's 5th Birthday Party
All are on my priority list before global warming. Come to think of it, so are these hot issues:
New Episode of Monk on Friday
When is Pan's Labrynth Coming to Town
Haircut
Why worry about something we are not sure of what it is, what is causing it, or even if there is anything anyone will or can do about it!
________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
While you talk about "What, if anything", you skip right past causation & damage to assume something has to be done.
In this case, the first question has to be "Can we do anything about it?"
If we can't, then we need to learn how to adapt.
If we can, then we need to explore our options, which brings us to a "cost / benefit" analysis.
"If we do nothing, what are the ramifications?"
"For each particular 'something', what are the ramifications?"
If - for example - the effect of warming turn out to be relatively benign and can be ameliorated, then it'd be pretty foolish to spend bazillions of dollars combating warming.
On the other hand, if the effects are going to be catastrophic, then spending bazillions of dollars may well be justified.
Problem is Global Warming True Believers aren't interested in discussing these issues. They know - as an article of faith - that global warming is man-made, that it will be catastrophic and that they should be given a blank check to fight against it.
It's like paying a doctor $10 billion to treat you when you don't know whether you have a common cold or cancer.
People are uncomfortable with uncertainty - and science is filled with uncertainty. Real science is patient and the truth is arrived at after decades or centuries of study. As a scientist I am insulted over how the scientific method has been bastardized by the likes of Al Gore. Its offensive to have non-scientists hijack a scientific theory and show such contempt to the scientific method.
Just because a majority of people think the globe is warming does not mean it is so. One must consider the period being compared. We ARE presently coming out of an ice age that occurred about 15,000 years ago (generally). So yea, we are probably warming - but one hot summer is not evidence of that no more than frozen citrus in CA is evidence of a coming ice age.
Peole forget, or ignore the fact, that the earth is constantly changing. That is fact. It will warm and it will cool. When one looks at the millions of years of earth history, arguments over what the "climate" has done in the past few decades all seems quite silly.
Also consider, how and where was data collected 100 years ago versus today? Talk about comparing apples and oranges!
Forget about Al Gore. I'm trying to figure out why so many real scientists, the kind who publish in peer-reviewed journals, are every bit as tendentious on the subject as he is. Am I just misreading them? Or is it really true that they are (mis)using the patina of scientific credibility to make what are actually political statements?
It might not be about politics, but its almost always about money. Global Warming is big business, no other thing has garnered so much of an increase in research funding since the beginning of the Aides crisis.
There is also hopes of tenure, and the respect of colleagues. When something becomes a Zeitgeist, there is a price to be paid to go against it.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
...back before the November elections, there was a flurry of debate about Prop. 87 in California, a move to increase the oil production tax? (It was defeated, BTW.)
Front & center as a proponent of the tax was a Nobel Laureate PhD biologist from UCSD that affixed his name to some Democratic party boilerplate. The language was very badly worded and showed that, as strong as his opinion was, it was just completely uninformed as to the facts.
So, yes, many of these people are whores who are shameless about capitalizing on their academic credentials, even on issues that they are no better informed than the man on the street.
To me, geology is the field that is hardest to square with Global Warming. Geologists have a perspective of geologic time, meaning that they take fluctuations over time frames of less than 10,000 years to be so much noise in the data.
Just because someone works hard to put the "PhD" behind their name does not mean that they become a human computer incapable of emotional thought.
Unfortunatly, when the subject comes to anthropologically-caused Global Warming, those scientists who are passionate about their belief in their work trying to establish proof some have legions of non-scientists (such as Al "Inconvienently Untruthful" Gore) to champion their cause. They drown out those scientists with contrary opinions and results who are just as passionate about their work. And the enablers in the media (who are complete bonehead simpletons when it comes to science most of the time) have a nice easy-to-understand storyline that scares the audience into watching them.
The politicization of science has happened throught recorded history (anyone remember studying Galileo?).
The data and modeling CAN be interpreted, reasonably, to indicate an anthropogenic change is occurring. I think these people are also swayed by anecdotal observations.
That same data can be challenged as not representative of the whole picture and thus NOT indicative of a change. Also, there is a body of data indicating no real change.
More data and observation is required - that is science and that is the point. Neither is "wrong," but neither is "right." Now, they need to collect more data, improve their primitive models and keep working toward an answer - real science is patient.
I also believe there are folks on both side of the issue sucking off a teet that provides them the $$ they need for further research and inflamatory statements and conclusions help get that money.
My $0.02
Re: Based on my readings in the media, and on blogs of all political stripes, it seems there is a significant portion of the American population that accepts the idea that the globe is warming.
I don't think there is any serious doubt that the world is warming, and has been for some time (since the end of the 19th century at least). The (very valid) doubt is whether we humans are to blame or is this is a natural occurance similar to other periods of global warming in the geological past? Then too there is the question of what to do about the situation. For sure we do need to consider the latter question seriously. Put me down as a major skeptic about Kyoto and all that, but at the very least we need to give serious thought to the possible disruptions the rising sea levels etc. (and etc.) will cause us. And perhaps we ought also be considering how to dampen the warming trend if it threatens to make things too unpleasant for us.
As for Five Minutes To Midnight, by all means set the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight: but the reason is Iran and North Korea, not the climate.
There's lots of money to be made on both sides
of the anthropomorphic global warming debate, but besides
that issue, doesn't pursuing non-fossil fuel energy
sources seem like a wise, long term strategy ?
And/or we discover "alternative energy" sources that are as efficient (cost to effect) as fossil fuels, sure, why not?
Until then, get out of the way of the drills...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Funny there's no mention of global warming in this story. We got plenty of mention in all the stories about warmer than normal weather in NY.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
..."I sat down with a friend in Malibu last night to watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", but the DVD player was frozen shut."
--
"I will guarantee you that John Kerry will be president of the United States." - Nancy Pelosi
and I don't mean as in "ha ha." They are becoming more and more shrill. Funny that these stories are coming out at the same time that our illustrious Speaker of the House announces she's going to create a global warming panel. Coincidence?
Well, elections do have consequences. Now the intellectually retarded freak show known as the Democrat base is spilling out of the woodwork like cockroaches.
Re: the Weather Channel climate chick. She should lose her job for proposing others should lose theirs because they disagree with the daisy chain groupthink that passes for serious scientific inquiry on this subject.
Plus, she's ugly.
I am so very tired of this bogus non-event.
The only interest future scientists will have in the global warming scare is as a case study of mob thinking on a large, psuedoscientific scale. Tehre is nothing significant happening to the climate or the weather, and if we are causing it, we are causing a tiny amount of it.
The increasingly shrill and hysterical tone of these people is amazing.
is the coming shift of the Earth's magnetic axis. That will cause some sort of upheaval, but no one knows just what.
But I am sure they will find some way to blame Bush and America.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
No verdict on the issue is out, and most likely never will be, but further study, further questions and further scientific debate is always a good thing.
It's the political debate we can all do without, along with the attempt by scientists, pseudo-scientists and politicians to storm the issue and fend off anyone who thinks differently. Empirical data is what we need and what is sorely lacking.
That said, investment in renewables, as mentioned above by mightmakesright, is a wise move no matter what one's political affiliation is.
I can only hope that the hippie lingo of the 60's will be out of the english language by the time I die. I cannot tell you how sick I am of hearing that crap and the minute I do I know I am hearing from an idiot and ignore everything said from that point on.
Peace through superior fire power:)
At least "the human condition" has been on the way out for a while now. Of course, maybe someone will rediscover it and it will make a big come back.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
has been replaced with "The human Element" with an entire ad campaign wrapped around it! I sream and reach for the MUTE button every time the commericals come on! Fact is, I don't even KNOW what the product is that they are trying to sell!
About the Atomic Clock, or whatever it's called, is that they included Global Warming as a factor, not because of the damage it could do, but because of the damage that could be done in its name...
Now, that may just be my own selective listening, but that's the way it came off on CNN last night...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
is about as accurate as Nancy Pelosi's 100 hour clock. Don't set your watch by it.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
I would like to line up all these pretentious left wing cretins and slap them back into reality.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle