A Global Warming Debate on PENSA
Posted By John Moore on July 3, 2009
This post is meant to be the head for a debate about global warming that started on the PHX PENSA notification email list. Global Warming, Antropogenic Climate Change (AGW) and green folly are frequent topics on this blog.
The thread started with a posting by the moderator linking to the BBC’s Great Global Warming Swindle video.
The initial response, posted here with permission from the
-
anonymous
author, was
There IS a lot of publicity that plate tectonics occurs. Darn that publicity! However, there isn’t a lot of publicity that the earth sits on the back of a turtle. Wonder why?
There IS a shortage of publicity for the “contrarian” view that the moon is really papier-maché. Why? That claim hasn’t gone through the gauntlet that is science, the scientific method and publishing system.
It is the same with the contrarian view regarding global warming: where are the peer-reviewed research projects?
The problem with the material on the contrarian side is that, for the most part, it is self-published, non-journaled, non-peer reviewed. Why are these processes important? They are the gauntlet through which science puts its work to ensure objectivity and accuracy. This gauntlet works surprisingly well; we can name on just a few fingers the times that bad science was published in the last three decades in respected journals - think Fleishman and Pons of “cold fusion” fame and SNUPY, the dog of South Korea cloning fame.
Imagine a doctor about to open you up for surgery saying, “Well, I read about this new procedure on a web site sponsored by bodyparts.com. In fact, I’m inserting into you a part made by Ennox, a multi-billion dollar company. They sponsor the web site…..but keep that part quiet. I just found about about this as I’m really clever.”
“Have the procedure or implant been verified?” you ask?
“No, but this has to be true as it is contrarian and links to several pieces on quite a few op-ed pages.”
You look skeptical. “Is there any original peer-reviewed research on this surgery?”
“Well……uh…..those peer-review folks are all alike. They are wacky. Trust me.”
I think you’d probably get off the operating table.
Imagine boarding a new jet that hasn’t gone through the testing process. Do you think you’d fly when the captain says, “Well, we’ve not really verified anything, but we didn’t agree with the way the old planes were designed and now we’re going to try this plane. Sit down and enjoy the ride.”
Science really IS a rigorous process. Scientists are conservative by nature; they aren’t into making outlandish claims or statements. Most often when their extrapolations err, it is on the conservative side. Add to this inherent careful nature of true scientists, the processes of science, which create even more layers of rigor. There is a difference between peer-reviewed, synthesis-based, journaled work and self-published, non-peer-reviewed material. Sadly, most Americans can’t distinguish the two.
On the other hand, Steve Milloy and his ilk, often secretly funded through fossil fuel “think tanks”, frequently “publish” their work on the internet, write articles and op-ed pieces, and self-publish books. They don’t go through peer review. Wonder why? I think the answer is obvious. It is the same reason the “tobacco-smoking-is-good-for-you” “research” didn’t get peer review. It wasn’t true. It didn’t hold up to rigorous examination.
Here is a review of a recent denier book. The review has some good points to make. Either listen or read. here.
In the 1970s and ‘80, we were warned about the damage to the ozone hole. We changed our actions. Those changes are having a measurable effect now. Lessons? 1) Human actions DO cause changes on a global scale. 2) You can get a lot accomplished when there isn’t a large industry spreading misinformation. (Read here )
Before arguing AGAINST something, it might be nice to know what the something is. You can read the original AR4 Synthsis report at here. Doing so would seem to be logical, unless data don’t matter and one’s mind already is fixed.
Some handy FAQs are here
This led to numerous replies, which were not forwarded by the list owner (this list is a notification list, not a mailing list).
My response was is the first response on this post. Please feel free to comment.