I realize that I have been quiet lately, but I will be trying to change that. Let's start by taking on one of the biggest newspapers in the country, shall we? I sent the following letter to the New York Times today. Shall we see how they respond?
I am curious as to whether or not your newspaper continues to employ a legal department or are people like Paul Krugman allowed to write libelous statements in your editorials and get away with it simply because it is called an opinion piece?
In the article titled "Who Cooked the Planet?" dated July 25, 2010, Krugman writes the following paragraph:
"You’ve probably heard about the accusations leveled against climate researchers — allegations of fabricated data, the supposedly damning e-mail messages of “Climategate,” and so on. What you may not have heard, because it has received much less publicity, is that every one of these supposed scandals was eventually unmasked as a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media."
This is a blatant lie and I have a very difficult time believing that Mr. Krugman does not know that it is a lie. It has been argued that the importance of the emails was overstated; it has been argued that the emails did not mean what people claimed or thought that they meant; it has been argued that the emails did not invalidate the science. It has not been argued, let alone charged or proved, that the scandal was a fraud.
An accusation of fraud is an accusation of a crime and for a newspaper to print that someone has been proven to have committed a crime knowing that no such crime has been proven is libel. Ask your legal department, if you still have one.
I fully realize that Mr. Krugman believes that he is above the common man and thus able to say anything he pleases with impunity, but this is not legally true. He is bound by the same legal standards as all the rest of us and you, as a prominent newspaper, are even more bound.
I am sure that you will prepare a correction for this before any lawyers become interested, though I am equally sure that you will bury that correction so that no one ever sees it, except by accident. You should be aware, of course, that bloggers will be quite interested in such a gaff in such a major newspaper.
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Friday, December 18, 2009
Some Problems With The Climate Change Debate
I've spent the last few days participating in some online forums discussing Anthropogenic Climate Change and I've come up with a short list of what seems to me to be some of the biggest problems in the debate. Keep in mind that some of these issues can also be applied to any controversial, hot-button debate.
1. Appeals to Authority prove nothing and science does not run on consensus. If every scientist but one says that the sun moves around the Earth, the one who says the opposite is still right.
2. If Recorded Data plus Your Theory does not equal Observed Temperatures then Your Theory is wrong. Math does not make mistakes, but people who think they know more than they do make them often. No amount of "compelling evidence" can change this fact. In truth, if the math is wrong, this proves that you do not understand the "compelling evidence" as well as you claim.
3. If your own records and measurements show that the global mean temperature has been on a long-term warming trend for thousands of years then pointing out that the earth is still warming is not exactly Breaking News. Claiming that it will warm at an increased rate is not the same thing as demonstrating that it is warming at an increased rate.
4. Settled science stands up to scrutiny against all currently available data. It might be proven false (and become, once again, unsettled) with new data at some future time, but it cannot be shaky with current data and be considered "settled". Attempting to split hairs on the scientific definition of "proven" does not alter the scientific definition of "settled". The Laws of Thermodynamics are settled science. The Big Bang theory is not. Please take note of the differences.
5. If the centerpiece of your argument is "Anyone who disagrees with me is morally inferior" then there is probably something seriously wrong with your argument. The reality of "everyone with Opinion A is morally righteous and and everyone with Opinion B is morally inferior" is so vanishingly rare that this argument is almost never justified. By the same token, if your argument relies on "everyone who says X really means Y" then you are also most likely wrong. While some people do function this way, most people say things remarkably close to what they actually believe. When someone presents an argument for why they believe a certain way, pretending they have not done so - whether or not you agree with their opinion - does not magically justify your position.
6. You cannot justifiably demand that people only listen to respectable scientists and claim that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically not respectable. This is a form of circular logic and the only thing it proves is that you are not interested in honest debate.
7. Expecting people to accept your theory as evidence for your theory is also circular logic. If your evidence for catastrophe is modeled projections of what will happen, but these models are based on your theory, you don't actually have evidence. You have your theory, stated twice. We cannot debate your theory by first agreeing to assume your theory is correct.
8. Demanding that the people who are not arguing for radical and/or expensive change must prove you wrong really is not how this game is played. If you are the one demanding radical and/or expensive change then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this change is justified. I do not have to prove that a multi-thousand-year trend will not dramatically change in the immediate future. You have to prove that it will.
9. Demanding that everyone change everything to suit your theory before you have proven your theory to be valid doesn't make much sense. Declaring the argument to be over when people are still asking for evidence doesn't prove anything. When your theory relies heavily on predictions that have repeatedly not come true and forecasts that cannot be tested, you might want to rethink declaring the debate to be over.
10. Claims that an increase in global mean temperature will have environmentally catastrophic results when the historical record demonstrates the exact opposite also doesn't make much sense. While there are certainly temperature thresholds that would be catastrophic, not even worst case scenarios in AGW predictions come anywhere close to those numbers. Most of the scientists involved freely admit that their worst case scenarios are highly unlikely, so arguing for even worse cases scenarios is irrational and dishonest. By that token, it is extremely dishonest to excoriate the other side for using inflammatory scare tactics when you are using inflammatory scare tactics yourself.
There you go, my Top Ten list for problems with the Climate Change debate.
1. Appeals to Authority prove nothing and science does not run on consensus. If every scientist but one says that the sun moves around the Earth, the one who says the opposite is still right.
2. If Recorded Data plus Your Theory does not equal Observed Temperatures then Your Theory is wrong. Math does not make mistakes, but people who think they know more than they do make them often. No amount of "compelling evidence" can change this fact. In truth, if the math is wrong, this proves that you do not understand the "compelling evidence" as well as you claim.
3. If your own records and measurements show that the global mean temperature has been on a long-term warming trend for thousands of years then pointing out that the earth is still warming is not exactly Breaking News. Claiming that it will warm at an increased rate is not the same thing as demonstrating that it is warming at an increased rate.
4. Settled science stands up to scrutiny against all currently available data. It might be proven false (and become, once again, unsettled) with new data at some future time, but it cannot be shaky with current data and be considered "settled". Attempting to split hairs on the scientific definition of "proven" does not alter the scientific definition of "settled". The Laws of Thermodynamics are settled science. The Big Bang theory is not. Please take note of the differences.
5. If the centerpiece of your argument is "Anyone who disagrees with me is morally inferior" then there is probably something seriously wrong with your argument. The reality of "everyone with Opinion A is morally righteous and and everyone with Opinion B is morally inferior" is so vanishingly rare that this argument is almost never justified. By the same token, if your argument relies on "everyone who says X really means Y" then you are also most likely wrong. While some people do function this way, most people say things remarkably close to what they actually believe. When someone presents an argument for why they believe a certain way, pretending they have not done so - whether or not you agree with their opinion - does not magically justify your position.
6. You cannot justifiably demand that people only listen to respectable scientists and claim that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically not respectable. This is a form of circular logic and the only thing it proves is that you are not interested in honest debate.
7. Expecting people to accept your theory as evidence for your theory is also circular logic. If your evidence for catastrophe is modeled projections of what will happen, but these models are based on your theory, you don't actually have evidence. You have your theory, stated twice. We cannot debate your theory by first agreeing to assume your theory is correct.
8. Demanding that the people who are not arguing for radical and/or expensive change must prove you wrong really is not how this game is played. If you are the one demanding radical and/or expensive change then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this change is justified. I do not have to prove that a multi-thousand-year trend will not dramatically change in the immediate future. You have to prove that it will.
9. Demanding that everyone change everything to suit your theory before you have proven your theory to be valid doesn't make much sense. Declaring the argument to be over when people are still asking for evidence doesn't prove anything. When your theory relies heavily on predictions that have repeatedly not come true and forecasts that cannot be tested, you might want to rethink declaring the debate to be over.
10. Claims that an increase in global mean temperature will have environmentally catastrophic results when the historical record demonstrates the exact opposite also doesn't make much sense. While there are certainly temperature thresholds that would be catastrophic, not even worst case scenarios in AGW predictions come anywhere close to those numbers. Most of the scientists involved freely admit that their worst case scenarios are highly unlikely, so arguing for even worse cases scenarios is irrational and dishonest. By that token, it is extremely dishonest to excoriate the other side for using inflammatory scare tactics when you are using inflammatory scare tactics yourself.
There you go, my Top Ten list for problems with the Climate Change debate.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Those Pesky Numbers Again
I came across a comment that simply must be addressed.
"During 2001 the IPCC made a number of predictions as to what would happen as a result of the climate change. It now turns out that the actual effects measured today are _worse_ than what was predicted. For example, the rise of the ocean level is 80% greater."
This is shoddy science at its worst and the fact that this meme is actually catching on is disturbing, to say the least.
First of all, I have to laugh at the use of "For example". The writer is apparently unaware of the fact that the claimed 80% increase is the only one of the 2001 predictions that is being held up as coming to pass. It is, in fact, the only one being talked about because none of the other predictions are even coming close.
So has there been an 80% increase in sea level measured in recent years? In words of one syllable of less, no, there has not. The only way this 80% number is achieved is by using two different sources for the beginning and ending figures. The 2001 predictions were based on tidal gauge measurements. The current claim of an 80% increase is based on satellite measurements. Anyone else notice how those two sentences do not contain the same words?
The difference here is important. We have been collecting data from sea level tidal gauges for over 200 years in some places (for example, data exists for Amsterdam as far back as 1700). We only began using satellites to measure sea levels in the mid-to-late 1990s. If you're counting, that's just over a decade, which is where a major problem comes in. According to studies using the larger tidal gauge data set, sea levels can vary widely from decade to decade and it requires multi-decade observation of data in order to identify discernible trends and understand the margin of error. We haven't been collecting satellite data for decades - we've only barely started the second decade of satellite observation of sea levels - so we cannot make accurate trend predictions from nor do we have anything resembling an accurate margin of error with satellite sea level measurements.
What makes this situation worse is that data from the two sources do not agree with each other. We are told that satellite data indicates an 80% increase, but that uses tidal gauge data as a starting point, and using tidal gauge data as an end point indicates no increase at all. I repeat: If you use tidal gauge data for the starting point and tidal gauge data for the ending point, there is no measurable increase in the rate of sea level rise. Tidal gauge data shows a sea level increase of approximately 1.8 mm per year for the last century and tidal gauge data still shows a sea level increase of approximately 1.8 mm per year. There seems to be something funny in this 80% math.
There are those who will claim that satellite data is more accurate than tidal gauge data. That may or may not be true, but it doesn't alter the point here in the slightest. Satellite data could be the most accurate data ever collected in the history of data collection and it would still be wrong if it used disagreeing, non-satellite data as its starting point. Tidal gauge data indicates sea levels and sea level increases far below those indicated by satellite data. If you're on a diet, do you use two different scales calibrated in different manners and to different degrees to determine your starting weight and how much weight you lose over time? Of course not! You don't have to be a climatologist or a physicist to know that would not give you accurate results, yet that is exactly what is being done with this 80% increase claim. There can only be one logical result when you start with a source that is measuring low and end with a source that is measuring high: a grossly inflated and highly inaccurate "increase".
"During 2001 the IPCC made a number of predictions as to what would happen as a result of the climate change. It now turns out that the actual effects measured today are _worse_ than what was predicted. For example, the rise of the ocean level is 80% greater."
This is shoddy science at its worst and the fact that this meme is actually catching on is disturbing, to say the least.
First of all, I have to laugh at the use of "For example". The writer is apparently unaware of the fact that the claimed 80% increase is the only one of the 2001 predictions that is being held up as coming to pass. It is, in fact, the only one being talked about because none of the other predictions are even coming close.
So has there been an 80% increase in sea level measured in recent years? In words of one syllable of less, no, there has not. The only way this 80% number is achieved is by using two different sources for the beginning and ending figures. The 2001 predictions were based on tidal gauge measurements. The current claim of an 80% increase is based on satellite measurements. Anyone else notice how those two sentences do not contain the same words?
The difference here is important. We have been collecting data from sea level tidal gauges for over 200 years in some places (for example, data exists for Amsterdam as far back as 1700). We only began using satellites to measure sea levels in the mid-to-late 1990s. If you're counting, that's just over a decade, which is where a major problem comes in. According to studies using the larger tidal gauge data set, sea levels can vary widely from decade to decade and it requires multi-decade observation of data in order to identify discernible trends and understand the margin of error. We haven't been collecting satellite data for decades - we've only barely started the second decade of satellite observation of sea levels - so we cannot make accurate trend predictions from nor do we have anything resembling an accurate margin of error with satellite sea level measurements.
What makes this situation worse is that data from the two sources do not agree with each other. We are told that satellite data indicates an 80% increase, but that uses tidal gauge data as a starting point, and using tidal gauge data as an end point indicates no increase at all. I repeat: If you use tidal gauge data for the starting point and tidal gauge data for the ending point, there is no measurable increase in the rate of sea level rise. Tidal gauge data shows a sea level increase of approximately 1.8 mm per year for the last century and tidal gauge data still shows a sea level increase of approximately 1.8 mm per year. There seems to be something funny in this 80% math.
There are those who will claim that satellite data is more accurate than tidal gauge data. That may or may not be true, but it doesn't alter the point here in the slightest. Satellite data could be the most accurate data ever collected in the history of data collection and it would still be wrong if it used disagreeing, non-satellite data as its starting point. Tidal gauge data indicates sea levels and sea level increases far below those indicated by satellite data. If you're on a diet, do you use two different scales calibrated in different manners and to different degrees to determine your starting weight and how much weight you lose over time? Of course not! You don't have to be a climatologist or a physicist to know that would not give you accurate results, yet that is exactly what is being done with this 80% increase claim. There can only be one logical result when you start with a source that is measuring low and end with a source that is measuring high: a grossly inflated and highly inaccurate "increase".
Monday, November 23, 2009
UK Government Cashing In On Green Lies
I wouldn't take nearly so much issue with the modern environmental movement if it wasn't so completely characterized by lies, hypocrisy, and fear-mongering misrepresentation of facts. I believe in taking care of the environment. I believe in the principle of "don't foul your own nest". I have always believed in recycling. I have always abhorred littering and waste. I was an environmentalist before being so was fashionable. However, I refuse to be associated with the absurd lies and manipulations of the modern movement.
It's too bad that governments don't feel compelled to be bound by such high standards.
The United Kingdom has launched a new environmental propaganda website, Act On CO2, that is meant to tell people the "truth" about climate change and correct any myths that might be floating around. It's quite a shame that the site actually perpetuates the myths instead of doing anything about correcting them.
If you go to the very first tab, "Climate change: the facts", and then click on the very first subject heading, "Rising temperatures and the greenhouse effect", the very first thing you'll see is the usual fear-mongering paragraph unsupported by any facts. Worse, actually, what little "facts" do get introduced are used in an extremely misleading manner.
According to this paragraph, "In the last 100 years the Earth has warmed by 0.74°C (and by 0.4°C since the 1970s) ..." This would be the misleading use of facts. Can it really be true that I somehow have so much greater an understanding of math than the average reader in the UK? You can't compare ".74 over 100 years" with ".4 since the 1970s". 1970s? 1970-what? 1971? 1975? 1979? Believe it or not, when figuring with such small numbers, knowing the exact starting figure used is very important. The math shown here also does not make clear if the temperature increase has been .4 per year, .4 over the given years, or what. Math is a precise, unambiguous language and using it in such a sloppy fashion demonstrates either sloppy or unethical workmanship from those involved.
[If math gives you a headache, you might want to skip the next paragraph. Fair warning.]
For the record, I did the math as best I could, using their sloppy figures. Assuming we take, as a starting year, 1975 and round up so that we are dealing with a 40-year period, and assuming an average per year temperature increase of .0074 (since they didn't include their baseline figure in this schlock, I had to take the expedient of dividing their .74 temperature by 100 years - this estimate will be off because of the implied increase over the last 40 years, but I can't know how far off because they didn't include the necessary data - however, at such small numbers, it cannot possibly be too far off). Using that .0074 as a baseline, we find that the expected 40-year increase for this century would be .296. Since we are, by necessity, estimating, we can easily and properly call that .3. So we expected a .3 increase over a 40-year period and got a .4 increase. That's 1/10th of a point higher than expected. Well within the margin of error ratio for any accepted statistical polling. That's an above-expected increase of only .0025 per year. Those numbers don't sound nearly as dramatic when expressed properly, do they?
[End of math paragraph. Those of you who dislike math may continue reading now.]
That mangled math sentence goes on to say, "meaning that global sea levels have gone up, glaciers and sea ice has melted, floods and droughts are on the increase, and heatwaves are worse." Where to begin. Where to begin.
If we go to "The effect of climate change on the UK", we get an expansion on the sea-level rise claim that will help to show the misrepresentation of facts here. "The sea-level rise across the UK is projected to be between 20cm and 80cm by 2100." Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age. They have been relatively stable for the last 2-3000 years only in comparison to the first several thousand years. They have still been rising. 19th Century sea level rise is estimated at an average of 1.8mm per year (I know, I know, math again, but it will be minimal this time). In order to reach even the smallest of those UK estimates, the rate of sea level rise would have to increase by a factor of at least 10 and it would have to do it soon. So is sea level rise speeding up? Not according to the physical evidence. Sea level rise today is still estimated at 1.8mm per year. Satellite data would seem to indicate a sea level rise of 3.1mm per year over the last decade (even if true, still an increase by a factor less than 2, far from 10), but we have only been collecting satellite data since 1993, barely over 10 years. According to the same study that established these theories, conducted by Simon Holgate of the U.K.’s Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory in 2007, sea level rise has fluctuated dramatically from decade to decade since 1904, which means that one decade of Simon Holgate of the U.K.’s Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory data is nowhere near enough to draw long term conclusions. The fact remains that tidal gauges, the same technology used to achieve the previous estimates, have not shown any increase in the rate of sea level rise.
Glaciers and sea ice have been melting. What no one wants to mention is that they've also been re-freezing and that they've been doing both at the same time, depending on where you look. Antarctic ice (both sea and land-based) is actually increasing, not decreasing. In some areas, Antarctic ice levels are currently above seasonal norms. If decreasing ice in one part of the world automatically means warming, doesn't increasing ice in another part of the world automatically mean cooling? Of course it doesn't work that way, but that's what the alarmists want you to believe on their side of the equation. The truth of the matter is that we haven't been studying or observing major ice sheets anywhere near long enough to truly know what "normal" is or to know what either the melting or the freezing means. We're just guessing, and everyone wants you to believe that the guesses of their side carry more weight than the guesses of the other side but it's not true. Without scientific data to support it, a guess is a guess is a guess, and there is currently a severe shortage of scientific data.
The rest of that alarmist nonsense is just that: nonsense. There is not one piece of evidence that the rate of floods or droughts has increased anywhere. As far as I have found, this website does not make mention of this funny little "fact" anywhere else either. There is plenty of talk about the floods and droughts that "will" come, but nothing at all to support the claim that they are already occurring. They don't really say anything else about the heat wave claim either, except to make mention of a seasonal heat wave that occurred six years ago (and has not been repeated) and then claim that such heat waves will become normal by the 2040s or 2050s. If you're not expecting this for 30-40 years, why is your opening paragraph claiming that it is already happening?
If a government is going to publish facts, it should publish facts. This mixed up propaganda piece is not facts. It's an attempt to scare people into playing along before the Copenhagen talks. I'm not sure what the tax situation is in the UK, but I definitely think they should be wondering about their money being wasted on this fluff piece. If such shoddy work is the best the alarmists can muster, it's no wonder they're most famous for huge meetings that generally accomplish nothing.
It's too bad that governments don't feel compelled to be bound by such high standards.
The United Kingdom has launched a new environmental propaganda website, Act On CO2, that is meant to tell people the "truth" about climate change and correct any myths that might be floating around. It's quite a shame that the site actually perpetuates the myths instead of doing anything about correcting them.
If you go to the very first tab, "Climate change: the facts", and then click on the very first subject heading, "Rising temperatures and the greenhouse effect", the very first thing you'll see is the usual fear-mongering paragraph unsupported by any facts. Worse, actually, what little "facts" do get introduced are used in an extremely misleading manner.
According to this paragraph, "In the last 100 years the Earth has warmed by 0.74°C (and by 0.4°C since the 1970s) ..." This would be the misleading use of facts. Can it really be true that I somehow have so much greater an understanding of math than the average reader in the UK? You can't compare ".74 over 100 years" with ".4 since the 1970s". 1970s? 1970-what? 1971? 1975? 1979? Believe it or not, when figuring with such small numbers, knowing the exact starting figure used is very important. The math shown here also does not make clear if the temperature increase has been .4 per year, .4 over the given years, or what. Math is a precise, unambiguous language and using it in such a sloppy fashion demonstrates either sloppy or unethical workmanship from those involved.
[If math gives you a headache, you might want to skip the next paragraph. Fair warning.]
For the record, I did the math as best I could, using their sloppy figures. Assuming we take, as a starting year, 1975 and round up so that we are dealing with a 40-year period, and assuming an average per year temperature increase of .0074 (since they didn't include their baseline figure in this schlock, I had to take the expedient of dividing their .74 temperature by 100 years - this estimate will be off because of the implied increase over the last 40 years, but I can't know how far off because they didn't include the necessary data - however, at such small numbers, it cannot possibly be too far off). Using that .0074 as a baseline, we find that the expected 40-year increase for this century would be .296. Since we are, by necessity, estimating, we can easily and properly call that .3. So we expected a .3 increase over a 40-year period and got a .4 increase. That's 1/10th of a point higher than expected. Well within the margin of error ratio for any accepted statistical polling. That's an above-expected increase of only .0025 per year. Those numbers don't sound nearly as dramatic when expressed properly, do they?
[End of math paragraph. Those of you who dislike math may continue reading now.]
That mangled math sentence goes on to say, "meaning that global sea levels have gone up, glaciers and sea ice has melted, floods and droughts are on the increase, and heatwaves are worse." Where to begin. Where to begin.
If we go to "The effect of climate change on the UK", we get an expansion on the sea-level rise claim that will help to show the misrepresentation of facts here. "The sea-level rise across the UK is projected to be between 20cm and 80cm by 2100." Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age. They have been relatively stable for the last 2-3000 years only in comparison to the first several thousand years. They have still been rising. 19th Century sea level rise is estimated at an average of 1.8mm per year (I know, I know, math again, but it will be minimal this time). In order to reach even the smallest of those UK estimates, the rate of sea level rise would have to increase by a factor of at least 10 and it would have to do it soon. So is sea level rise speeding up? Not according to the physical evidence. Sea level rise today is still estimated at 1.8mm per year. Satellite data would seem to indicate a sea level rise of 3.1mm per year over the last decade (even if true, still an increase by a factor less than 2, far from 10), but we have only been collecting satellite data since 1993, barely over 10 years. According to the same study that established these theories, conducted by Simon Holgate of the U.K.’s Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory in 2007, sea level rise has fluctuated dramatically from decade to decade since 1904, which means that one decade of Simon Holgate of the U.K.’s Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory data is nowhere near enough to draw long term conclusions. The fact remains that tidal gauges, the same technology used to achieve the previous estimates, have not shown any increase in the rate of sea level rise.
Glaciers and sea ice have been melting. What no one wants to mention is that they've also been re-freezing and that they've been doing both at the same time, depending on where you look. Antarctic ice (both sea and land-based) is actually increasing, not decreasing. In some areas, Antarctic ice levels are currently above seasonal norms. If decreasing ice in one part of the world automatically means warming, doesn't increasing ice in another part of the world automatically mean cooling? Of course it doesn't work that way, but that's what the alarmists want you to believe on their side of the equation. The truth of the matter is that we haven't been studying or observing major ice sheets anywhere near long enough to truly know what "normal" is or to know what either the melting or the freezing means. We're just guessing, and everyone wants you to believe that the guesses of their side carry more weight than the guesses of the other side but it's not true. Without scientific data to support it, a guess is a guess is a guess, and there is currently a severe shortage of scientific data.
The rest of that alarmist nonsense is just that: nonsense. There is not one piece of evidence that the rate of floods or droughts has increased anywhere. As far as I have found, this website does not make mention of this funny little "fact" anywhere else either. There is plenty of talk about the floods and droughts that "will" come, but nothing at all to support the claim that they are already occurring. They don't really say anything else about the heat wave claim either, except to make mention of a seasonal heat wave that occurred six years ago (and has not been repeated) and then claim that such heat waves will become normal by the 2040s or 2050s. If you're not expecting this for 30-40 years, why is your opening paragraph claiming that it is already happening?
If a government is going to publish facts, it should publish facts. This mixed up propaganda piece is not facts. It's an attempt to scare people into playing along before the Copenhagen talks. I'm not sure what the tax situation is in the UK, but I definitely think they should be wondering about their money being wasted on this fluff piece. If such shoddy work is the best the alarmists can muster, it's no wonder they're most famous for huge meetings that generally accomplish nothing.
Friday, November 20, 2009
The Hottest Scandal In Ages
What may turn out to be the biggest scandal in the climate change debate since that debate began has exploded across the internet. If you haven't seen the headlines yet, it appears that an unknown Russian hacker broke into the database of The University of East Anglia's (England) Hadley Climatic Research Centre and published to the internet thousands of documents and emails, all related to climate research and all previously unseen by the public. (I should state here, for the record, that the hacker is assumed to be Russian because the original ftp source for the leaked documents was on a Russian server, but no one, to my knowledge, has yet claimed credit.) I haven't gone through the documents myself - according to sources, there are nearly 4,000 documents, not counting emails - but excerpts indicate that there are numerous discussions of hiding or manipulating data, deleting potentially troublesome emails, uncertainties among the scientists themselves, and methods for discrediting and sidelining scientific journals not supportive of prevailing theories.
That all sounds pretty juicy, though everyone is still quick to tack on the "alleged" part, since no one has actually confirmed that the documents are real. Of course, no one has actually denied the legitimacy of the documents either. In fact, Philip Jones, the Director of the CRU and frequent star of the emails in question, has confirmed the reality of at least some of the emails, though he has claimed, both, that they are taken out of context and that he does not remember the context. How does one make both of those claims at once?
The spin is already out. The skeptics are cherry picking the documents; it's a publicity stunt to derail the upcoming Copenhagen talks; scientists may say things more openly in "private" emails but that doesn't undermine the research itself; etc.
I'll point out again that we're talking about 4,000 documents plus emails. The hack (which, by the way, has been confirmed) took place three days ago. The documents were released today. What kind of army would be necessary to cherry pick through that many documents in such a short time? More to the point, how many documents were actually acquired if they were cherry picked and that many were still released?
I have no doubt that the timing - and thus the accusations of publicity stunt - is quite real and intentional, but so what? If you were trying to get out a message that so many people refuse to hear, wouldn't you time your move for maximum impact as well? I'm sure it makes the spinners feel better, but it doesn't really change the argument.
As for the underlying research, that's a joke. The whole problem is the shoddy nature of the underlying research. Part of what's being discussed in those emails is the very real (and embarrassing) fact that real world data has not conformed to predicted data. Predictive models only have value if they can accurately plot the past and/or their predictions accurately model the ongoing present. Neither of these has ever been true in the ongoing climate change debate! There has not been a single climate change model that has accurately plotted climate patterns of the past and there has not been a single climate change prediction that has come true. Not one! They have been using, updating, and "improving" these models since the 1970's, and they haven't gotten a prediction right yet.
The alarmists will continue to spin and they will do their best to dismiss this scandal, but there is a growing number of people who have legitimate doubts. This scandal may mean much to them. If nothing else, it will underline and exclamation point the fact that the alarmists are not the neutral, honest, scientific observers they claim to be.
That all sounds pretty juicy, though everyone is still quick to tack on the "alleged" part, since no one has actually confirmed that the documents are real. Of course, no one has actually denied the legitimacy of the documents either. In fact, Philip Jones, the Director of the CRU and frequent star of the emails in question, has confirmed the reality of at least some of the emails, though he has claimed, both, that they are taken out of context and that he does not remember the context. How does one make both of those claims at once?
The spin is already out. The skeptics are cherry picking the documents; it's a publicity stunt to derail the upcoming Copenhagen talks; scientists may say things more openly in "private" emails but that doesn't undermine the research itself; etc.
I'll point out again that we're talking about 4,000 documents plus emails. The hack (which, by the way, has been confirmed) took place three days ago. The documents were released today. What kind of army would be necessary to cherry pick through that many documents in such a short time? More to the point, how many documents were actually acquired if they were cherry picked and that many were still released?
I have no doubt that the timing - and thus the accusations of publicity stunt - is quite real and intentional, but so what? If you were trying to get out a message that so many people refuse to hear, wouldn't you time your move for maximum impact as well? I'm sure it makes the spinners feel better, but it doesn't really change the argument.
As for the underlying research, that's a joke. The whole problem is the shoddy nature of the underlying research. Part of what's being discussed in those emails is the very real (and embarrassing) fact that real world data has not conformed to predicted data. Predictive models only have value if they can accurately plot the past and/or their predictions accurately model the ongoing present. Neither of these has ever been true in the ongoing climate change debate! There has not been a single climate change model that has accurately plotted climate patterns of the past and there has not been a single climate change prediction that has come true. Not one! They have been using, updating, and "improving" these models since the 1970's, and they haven't gotten a prediction right yet.
The alarmists will continue to spin and they will do their best to dismiss this scandal, but there is a growing number of people who have legitimate doubts. This scandal may mean much to them. If nothing else, it will underline and exclamation point the fact that the alarmists are not the neutral, honest, scientific observers they claim to be.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Why We Don't Trust The News
If you like your "news without a perspective" (hint hint jab jab) then this should tickle your funny bone. The other day, the group 350.org promoted climate change protests around the world and these protests were, of course, much talked about in virtually every news source available (contrary to the claims of The Nation, which tried to claim they were the only ones giving the subject any play - sound familiar?). In fact, for a couple days, it was more than a little difficult to get away from news sources falling over themselves to see who could praise this group the highest. So much for news without a perspective.
That's not my point here, though, but it does play into it. I have two quotes from two different news sources, both making the same basic claims. I want you to pay attention here and see if you can play Spot What's Wrong With This Picture.
The Nation quoted 350.org founder Bill McKibben: "Glaciers and sea ice are melting, drought is spreading, and flooding is on the increase because our planet has reached a proven unsafe level of CO2 emissions," while The Christian Science Monitor quoted Rose Braz of the Center for Biological Diversity: “The Arctic is already melting, sea level is already rising, and polar bears are already dying.”
Isn't that cute? They both said the same thing, though Ms. Braz apparently forgot to mention those pesky droughts and floods. (How exactly do you have increased flooding and increased droughts at the same time with the same cause?) They wouldn't be parroting talking points, would they? Of course not. Liberals hate it when you parrot talking points, don't they?
Both of these "independent thinkers", however, get points removed for making the highlights of their respective speeches items that are patently and demonstrably false. That polar bear story was debunked the day after it came out (out of approximately 20 distinct polar bear communities, the "researchers" only counted 2 and claimed that this was representative of the whole). There has been zero documentation of increased flooding or droughts attributable to climate change anywhere in the world (the computer models predict these increases but that is not the same thing as claiming they are already happening). There has been zero documented increase in the rate of sea level rise (the global sea level has been rising for thousands of years - computer models predict that it will rise faster but, again, this is not the same thing as showing that it is already happening). In short, the only part of these two remarkably similar speeches that actually relates to the real world is melting arctic sea ice and even that is a case of it's melting over here but not over there.
To put it bluntly, both of these people made major claims that are not currently supported by evidence or facts. Yet neither news source so much as mentioned that these claims were controversial. They printed them as fact and didn't offer even a hint of corroboration or fact checking. But these are real news sources, right?
While doing some research for this one, I came across an interesting little factoid that should make you scratch your head. Those people who are talking about sea level increases state that, when the glaciers were melting at the end of the last ice age, the sea level increase rate was approximately one meter per century. According to their predictions, they expect this same sea level increase rate as a result of global warming. Keep in mind that, during the ice age, Manhattan was under one of those glaciers and try to figure out how melting ice sheets less than a tenth the size they were then are going to cause the same sea level increases they caused then.
That's not my point here, though, but it does play into it. I have two quotes from two different news sources, both making the same basic claims. I want you to pay attention here and see if you can play Spot What's Wrong With This Picture.
The Nation quoted 350.org founder Bill McKibben: "Glaciers and sea ice are melting, drought is spreading, and flooding is on the increase because our planet has reached a proven unsafe level of CO2 emissions," while The Christian Science Monitor quoted Rose Braz of the Center for Biological Diversity: “The Arctic is already melting, sea level is already rising, and polar bears are already dying.”
Isn't that cute? They both said the same thing, though Ms. Braz apparently forgot to mention those pesky droughts and floods. (How exactly do you have increased flooding and increased droughts at the same time with the same cause?) They wouldn't be parroting talking points, would they? Of course not. Liberals hate it when you parrot talking points, don't they?
Both of these "independent thinkers", however, get points removed for making the highlights of their respective speeches items that are patently and demonstrably false. That polar bear story was debunked the day after it came out (out of approximately 20 distinct polar bear communities, the "researchers" only counted 2 and claimed that this was representative of the whole). There has been zero documentation of increased flooding or droughts attributable to climate change anywhere in the world (the computer models predict these increases but that is not the same thing as claiming they are already happening). There has been zero documented increase in the rate of sea level rise (the global sea level has been rising for thousands of years - computer models predict that it will rise faster but, again, this is not the same thing as showing that it is already happening). In short, the only part of these two remarkably similar speeches that actually relates to the real world is melting arctic sea ice and even that is a case of it's melting over here but not over there.
To put it bluntly, both of these people made major claims that are not currently supported by evidence or facts. Yet neither news source so much as mentioned that these claims were controversial. They printed them as fact and didn't offer even a hint of corroboration or fact checking. But these are real news sources, right?
While doing some research for this one, I came across an interesting little factoid that should make you scratch your head. Those people who are talking about sea level increases state that, when the glaciers were melting at the end of the last ice age, the sea level increase rate was approximately one meter per century. According to their predictions, they expect this same sea level increase rate as a result of global warming. Keep in mind that, during the ice age, Manhattan was under one of those glaciers and try to figure out how melting ice sheets less than a tenth the size they were then are going to cause the same sea level increases they caused then.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The Problem With The Feel Good Crowd
I want to present to you a comment that demonstrates the fallacy inherent in the thinking of many Do Gooder types who believe that good intentions automatically translate into good results. Let me preface this by saying that the argument presented in the comment is false, but I do not believe that it is intentionally false. That is, I do not believe the person who made this comment was actively trying to distort anything but rather actually believes that things are as simple as the comment represents. This naivety is central to the problem of arguing or debating with certain people. This is not quite the same thing as those who demonize their opponents because those people are doing it maliciously with the intent to shut down debate. These people, on the other hand, truly believe that there is no debate because they truly believe that there are only positive results from what they want and only negative from the other side.
I should also note that, while this comment deals specifically with the climate change argument, the fallacy involved is by no means restricted to that debate. This thinking is widespread and interferes with rational discussion in all kinds of areas.
QUOTE
"The thing that bothers me about people who deny man-made global warming is this; what if public politics and policy ultimately reflect your views, and you end up being wrong? We are not only stuck with more pollution in the air, we also potentially have to deal with crop-threatening droughts and the sea swallowing up our coastal cities.
If the people who believe man-made global warming is real have instead their vision of public policy being adopted so that pollution is reduced, and they end up being wrong, we have... cleaner air. Hmmmm....
Any person vocally opposing man-made global warming theory seems to me simply short-sighted. There are so many other lousy causes to take up that are better."
END QUOTE
See there? Only sunshine and flowers from what I want; only doom and gloom from what you want. If you're wrong it kills everything; if we're wrong nothing gets hurt and you get a bonus. I have seen people intentionally and maliciously use misrepresent the debate in this way - and I have jumped down on them with both feet - but I have also seen plenty of people for whom this is a genuine belief, and those people need to be addressed as well.
First of all, the number of people arguing for more pollution is vanishingly small. Sure there are those in various areas of business and industry who would love to be able to do anything they want to maximize profits with no consideration for consequences, but they are not the bulk of the skeptic community any more than those who want to use environmental issues for power and money are the bulk of the climate change community. The bulk of both communities is predominantly real people who truly believe that their position is the best position for people as a whole. Anyone who dismisses that fact is not giving you an honest discussion.
Disagreeing with, being skeptical of, or arguing against human caused climate change does not equal supporting more pollution. It is absolutely impossible to give the "stuck with more pollution in the air" argument when existing environmental regulations have already reduced air pollution levels to their lowest points since the Industrial Revolution began. The argument here is not over whether or not to lower air pollution levels - that has already been decided and the decision was to do so - but rather it is about how fast to lower them, what methods to use to lower them, and whether or not to add such things as CO2 to the list of pollutants. That is an entirely different debate than is represented by the comment.
There is no consensus that global warming would result in "crop-threatening droughts". It might happen but it is just as possible that global warming could result in improved farming conditions. Longer growing seasons, arable land where none currently exists. What is most likely, if global warming were to race along at the worst predicted levels - is that some areas would see the negative results while other areas would see the positive results and the net global change (as far as crops go, anyway) would be just about zero. Yes, the people who cannot grow food where they used to do so will not be very happy, but I'll bet the people who can grow what they couldn't in the past will be thrilled.
It is also utter nonsense that rising sea levels will "swallow" coastal cities. The predicted sea level increase is only about 3 millimeters a year or about one foot over the next century. Read that again. A predicted sea level increase if one foot over a period of 100 years. Hardly the Blob That Ate New York. Also keep in mind that this is during an interglacial period when incremental sea level increases are to be expected, regardless of anything else.
In short, the Doom and Gloom of the "if you're wrong" scenario is simply repeating talking points without checking to see if there is any validity in those talking points. However, nothing in that Doom and Gloom scenario of "if you're wrong" is precisely impossible so, if the "if I'm wrong" description is accurate, it's still a better choice, right?
I suppose it could be called a better choice if it were accurate, but it's not accurate so it is not automatically better.
The "if I'm wrong" scenario completely ignores the costs involved. We're not talking chump change here. Far from, in fact. We're talking about billions upon billions of dollars, just in flat, measurable costs. That, alone, should make you want more information. It isn't alone, though. We are also talking about the costs of unemployment - it cannot be denied that many people will be put out of work by the proposed regulations - increased bureaucracy, decreased freedoms, and various other less tangible, less measurable costs. If there truly is a coming catastrophe and if these costs can truly help to avert that catastrophe then it might be possible to argue that the costs are worth it. However, you cannot simply dismiss these costs out of existence when making comparisons and you cannot make any argument that the costs might be worth it by pretending the costs aren't there in the first place.
As I said at the beginning, there are many people who actually believe that it is as simple as "even if I'm wrong you get cleaner air and no one gets hurt, so there is no downside", but it is not that simple. There is a potential downside and you cannot make that downside disappear just by offering cleaner air. I, personally, am all for cleaner air. We, as a whole, are already working toward (and quite successfully, I might add) cleaner air. The difference is, my preferred methods have already demonstrated positive results and lower costs while your preferred methods cost boatloads more and are largely untried and experimental. In the presence of an imminent, fixable catastrophe costly new methods might be just the trick. In the absence of such a catastrophe, however, they are irresponsible, possibly criminally so. So let's get back to determining the realities of that catastrophe, shall we, and skip the naive "I'm all sunshine and flowers but you're all doom and gloom" comparisons.
I should also note that, while this comment deals specifically with the climate change argument, the fallacy involved is by no means restricted to that debate. This thinking is widespread and interferes with rational discussion in all kinds of areas.
QUOTE
"The thing that bothers me about people who deny man-made global warming is this; what if public politics and policy ultimately reflect your views, and you end up being wrong? We are not only stuck with more pollution in the air, we also potentially have to deal with crop-threatening droughts and the sea swallowing up our coastal cities.
If the people who believe man-made global warming is real have instead their vision of public policy being adopted so that pollution is reduced, and they end up being wrong, we have... cleaner air. Hmmmm....
Any person vocally opposing man-made global warming theory seems to me simply short-sighted. There are so many other lousy causes to take up that are better."
END QUOTE
See there? Only sunshine and flowers from what I want; only doom and gloom from what you want. If you're wrong it kills everything; if we're wrong nothing gets hurt and you get a bonus. I have seen people intentionally and maliciously use misrepresent the debate in this way - and I have jumped down on them with both feet - but I have also seen plenty of people for whom this is a genuine belief, and those people need to be addressed as well.
First of all, the number of people arguing for more pollution is vanishingly small. Sure there are those in various areas of business and industry who would love to be able to do anything they want to maximize profits with no consideration for consequences, but they are not the bulk of the skeptic community any more than those who want to use environmental issues for power and money are the bulk of the climate change community. The bulk of both communities is predominantly real people who truly believe that their position is the best position for people as a whole. Anyone who dismisses that fact is not giving you an honest discussion.
Disagreeing with, being skeptical of, or arguing against human caused climate change does not equal supporting more pollution. It is absolutely impossible to give the "stuck with more pollution in the air" argument when existing environmental regulations have already reduced air pollution levels to their lowest points since the Industrial Revolution began. The argument here is not over whether or not to lower air pollution levels - that has already been decided and the decision was to do so - but rather it is about how fast to lower them, what methods to use to lower them, and whether or not to add such things as CO2 to the list of pollutants. That is an entirely different debate than is represented by the comment.
There is no consensus that global warming would result in "crop-threatening droughts". It might happen but it is just as possible that global warming could result in improved farming conditions. Longer growing seasons, arable land where none currently exists. What is most likely, if global warming were to race along at the worst predicted levels - is that some areas would see the negative results while other areas would see the positive results and the net global change (as far as crops go, anyway) would be just about zero. Yes, the people who cannot grow food where they used to do so will not be very happy, but I'll bet the people who can grow what they couldn't in the past will be thrilled.
It is also utter nonsense that rising sea levels will "swallow" coastal cities. The predicted sea level increase is only about 3 millimeters a year or about one foot over the next century. Read that again. A predicted sea level increase if one foot over a period of 100 years. Hardly the Blob That Ate New York. Also keep in mind that this is during an interglacial period when incremental sea level increases are to be expected, regardless of anything else.
In short, the Doom and Gloom of the "if you're wrong" scenario is simply repeating talking points without checking to see if there is any validity in those talking points. However, nothing in that Doom and Gloom scenario of "if you're wrong" is precisely impossible so, if the "if I'm wrong" description is accurate, it's still a better choice, right?
I suppose it could be called a better choice if it were accurate, but it's not accurate so it is not automatically better.
The "if I'm wrong" scenario completely ignores the costs involved. We're not talking chump change here. Far from, in fact. We're talking about billions upon billions of dollars, just in flat, measurable costs. That, alone, should make you want more information. It isn't alone, though. We are also talking about the costs of unemployment - it cannot be denied that many people will be put out of work by the proposed regulations - increased bureaucracy, decreased freedoms, and various other less tangible, less measurable costs. If there truly is a coming catastrophe and if these costs can truly help to avert that catastrophe then it might be possible to argue that the costs are worth it. However, you cannot simply dismiss these costs out of existence when making comparisons and you cannot make any argument that the costs might be worth it by pretending the costs aren't there in the first place.
As I said at the beginning, there are many people who actually believe that it is as simple as "even if I'm wrong you get cleaner air and no one gets hurt, so there is no downside", but it is not that simple. There is a potential downside and you cannot make that downside disappear just by offering cleaner air. I, personally, am all for cleaner air. We, as a whole, are already working toward (and quite successfully, I might add) cleaner air. The difference is, my preferred methods have already demonstrated positive results and lower costs while your preferred methods cost boatloads more and are largely untried and experimental. In the presence of an imminent, fixable catastrophe costly new methods might be just the trick. In the absence of such a catastrophe, however, they are irresponsible, possibly criminally so. So let's get back to determining the realities of that catastrophe, shall we, and skip the naive "I'm all sunshine and flowers but you're all doom and gloom" comparisons.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
The "Evidence" for Catastrophic Climate Change
The single most used piece of evidence in the climate change debate is computerized climate models. This is an unarguable fact. Every statement of catastrophic climate change is based in computer models because there is no observable evidence for catastrophe. There can't be observable evidence because there is no observable climate-related catastrophe currently occurring.
Let's put a few things into perspective before we go any further. No one with even the barest education denies that there is such a thing as climate change. In fact, the cynical observer can note that the reason the environmental lobby switched from using the label "global warming" to "climate change" was because the one was highly debatable while the other was not and using the undebatable term would help to silence the rest of the debate as well (the cynical observer also notes that it is difficult to keep the public's attention on a threat of global warming if the planet refuses to cooperate and show consistent warming trends for you). Climate change happens and always has happened. Earth's climate has never been stable. Dismissing skeptics as "people who don't believe in climate change" is ridiculous and a dishonest refusal to address what is actually being said.
What is actually being debated is 1) whether or not the current round of climate change has a significant human influence and 2) whether or not the current round of climate change has potentially catastrophic consequences for humanity (if you think it's about catastrophic consequences for the planet, you're delusional - the planet will adapt and keep going regardless). Contrary to popular belief, the debate on these two questions has not been settled. It cannot be settled because it has never happened. It cannot happen because, from Day One, believers have accepted the premise as proven fact and have vilified doubters with a fervor usually reserved for religious inquisitions. (Want an example of this fanatic extremism? A prominent New York Times columnist recently argued that those who voted against the Cap and Trade bill in the House should be considered treasonous. How's that for open minded discussion?)
To be fair, the first question cannot be answered with any surety. Not in anything resembling the short term, anyway. The only way to prove this point, one way or the other, is to make dramatic changes and then wait around about a hundred years to measure the results. Not the most efficient means of answering a current events argument but this is, essentially, what the environmental lobby wants. It is not, however, what the general public wants. Such dramatic changes would be expensive beyond comprehension and would produce equally dramatic upheavals in everyday life. The general public does not like that kind of change without a good reason.
Which is where the second question comes into play. If there is an imminent catastrophe and such dramatic changes have a real chance of heading off this catastrophe then there is good reason for the changes.
So, is there an imminent catastrophe? The environmental lobby says there is, but that's not exactly an unbiased source. Is there evidence for an imminent catastrophe? Contrary to the constant headlines, the answer to that question is a resounding no. A catastrophe is certainly within the realm of the possible, but every statement of catastrophe that has been made has been a guess or a computer model prediction.
There is no evidence in the historical record. Warming trends and cooling trends have been well documented through the use of core samples and other such data collection methods. While there is plenty of evidence for cooling trend catastrophes (ice ages do tend to make such survival requirements as food collection/production rather challenging, to say the least) there is nothing in the historical record to indicate the kind of global catastrophe being described as a result of a warming trend. In fact, human culture and civilization has tended to thrive during the warming trends!
The proponents of catastrophic climate change do not challenge this fact (except maybe for those who are so uneducated they believe the catastrophe is due within their own lifetimes, despite the fact that their own models do not predict catastrophe for about a century). Instead they argue that it isn't relevant because this time the world is warming faster than ever before, but what is the evidence for this claim? There isn't any because the scientists these people are quoting don't claim this! These scientists claim that the world will be warming faster than ever before. Notice the difference? The scientists are not stating an observed fact, they are making a prediction. They are then using that prediction to support another prediction. In order to make the first prediction, however, they must assume that human activity has a significant impact on the world's climate, which is exactly what these predictions are supposed to be trying to prove in the first place. Nice circle.
As I said at the beginning, the single most used piece of evidence in the climate change debate is computer models. Melting ice sheets? The major ice sheets have always melted and reformed and we have only been actively observing this process for thirty years. We know nothing of any consequence about the major ice sheets - which are currently melting and freezing, depending on where you look - and only computer models indicate that what is happening now is any different from normal fluctuations. Mass extinctions? If you had any idea how many species are assumed to go extinct every hour now, you would only be able to laugh at this claim. The truth of the matter is that no one has a clue how many species are on this planet and no one knows how many go extinct or what will cause or prevent these extinctions. Claims of mass extinction are nothing more than computer model number crunching based on statistics and probabilities. Severe global drought? This one is another joke. A prolonged or unusual warming trend is as likely to increase atmospheric moisture as to reduce it. This is all based on computer models and many of those models actually predict longer growing seasons and more arable land (which is also what the historical record supports). Quite the opposite of a drought. Rising sea levels? This one is actually smoke and mirrors. Sea levels have actually been rising for centuries (to put it mildly - pretty much since the end of the last Ice Age) and most computer models do not predict any unusual increase in this natural, ongoing process. It just sounds bad because no one mentions that it's been going on forever. The models that do predict catastrophic rises have been used for benchmarks for years and, so far, they have not gotten one single sea level increase prediction right.
Notice a trend here? Every single claim made by proponents of climate change catastrophe is based on computer models - models that either cannot be independantly verified or that get the predictions wrong when attempts to verify are made - and then they claim the debate is closed. Computer models cannot prove anything except the fact that a computer can model something based on input. No other branch of science would be allowed to claim something as proven based only on computer models and I don't think any other branch would try.
Astrophysicists had computer models predicting the existence of black holes for decades before the phenomenon was observed and, until it was observed, it was only a theory. Cosmologists have computer models predicting the existence of dark matter but no other evidence has yet been found, so dark matter is only a theory. Computer models exist that show that a cataclysmic meteor strike of Earth now only has happened but can happen again, yet no one is suggesting a complete upheaval of society to prepare for this possible catastrophe.
:et's be clear: Cleaning up the environment is a good thing and should be done. I always considered myself an environmentalist before that label was stolen by irrational fanatics. Trashing your own home is just stupid! Cleaning the environment, however, can be done without record deficits or social upheaval. If there is no imminent catastrophe then it should be done without record deficits or social upheaval. Until there is more evidence than computer models, the debate is still open and arrogantly refusing to listen helps no one.
Let's put a few things into perspective before we go any further. No one with even the barest education denies that there is such a thing as climate change. In fact, the cynical observer can note that the reason the environmental lobby switched from using the label "global warming" to "climate change" was because the one was highly debatable while the other was not and using the undebatable term would help to silence the rest of the debate as well (the cynical observer also notes that it is difficult to keep the public's attention on a threat of global warming if the planet refuses to cooperate and show consistent warming trends for you). Climate change happens and always has happened. Earth's climate has never been stable. Dismissing skeptics as "people who don't believe in climate change" is ridiculous and a dishonest refusal to address what is actually being said.
What is actually being debated is 1) whether or not the current round of climate change has a significant human influence and 2) whether or not the current round of climate change has potentially catastrophic consequences for humanity (if you think it's about catastrophic consequences for the planet, you're delusional - the planet will adapt and keep going regardless). Contrary to popular belief, the debate on these two questions has not been settled. It cannot be settled because it has never happened. It cannot happen because, from Day One, believers have accepted the premise as proven fact and have vilified doubters with a fervor usually reserved for religious inquisitions. (Want an example of this fanatic extremism? A prominent New York Times columnist recently argued that those who voted against the Cap and Trade bill in the House should be considered treasonous. How's that for open minded discussion?)
To be fair, the first question cannot be answered with any surety. Not in anything resembling the short term, anyway. The only way to prove this point, one way or the other, is to make dramatic changes and then wait around about a hundred years to measure the results. Not the most efficient means of answering a current events argument but this is, essentially, what the environmental lobby wants. It is not, however, what the general public wants. Such dramatic changes would be expensive beyond comprehension and would produce equally dramatic upheavals in everyday life. The general public does not like that kind of change without a good reason.
Which is where the second question comes into play. If there is an imminent catastrophe and such dramatic changes have a real chance of heading off this catastrophe then there is good reason for the changes.
So, is there an imminent catastrophe? The environmental lobby says there is, but that's not exactly an unbiased source. Is there evidence for an imminent catastrophe? Contrary to the constant headlines, the answer to that question is a resounding no. A catastrophe is certainly within the realm of the possible, but every statement of catastrophe that has been made has been a guess or a computer model prediction.
There is no evidence in the historical record. Warming trends and cooling trends have been well documented through the use of core samples and other such data collection methods. While there is plenty of evidence for cooling trend catastrophes (ice ages do tend to make such survival requirements as food collection/production rather challenging, to say the least) there is nothing in the historical record to indicate the kind of global catastrophe being described as a result of a warming trend. In fact, human culture and civilization has tended to thrive during the warming trends!
The proponents of catastrophic climate change do not challenge this fact (except maybe for those who are so uneducated they believe the catastrophe is due within their own lifetimes, despite the fact that their own models do not predict catastrophe for about a century). Instead they argue that it isn't relevant because this time the world is warming faster than ever before, but what is the evidence for this claim? There isn't any because the scientists these people are quoting don't claim this! These scientists claim that the world will be warming faster than ever before. Notice the difference? The scientists are not stating an observed fact, they are making a prediction. They are then using that prediction to support another prediction. In order to make the first prediction, however, they must assume that human activity has a significant impact on the world's climate, which is exactly what these predictions are supposed to be trying to prove in the first place. Nice circle.
As I said at the beginning, the single most used piece of evidence in the climate change debate is computer models. Melting ice sheets? The major ice sheets have always melted and reformed and we have only been actively observing this process for thirty years. We know nothing of any consequence about the major ice sheets - which are currently melting and freezing, depending on where you look - and only computer models indicate that what is happening now is any different from normal fluctuations. Mass extinctions? If you had any idea how many species are assumed to go extinct every hour now, you would only be able to laugh at this claim. The truth of the matter is that no one has a clue how many species are on this planet and no one knows how many go extinct or what will cause or prevent these extinctions. Claims of mass extinction are nothing more than computer model number crunching based on statistics and probabilities. Severe global drought? This one is another joke. A prolonged or unusual warming trend is as likely to increase atmospheric moisture as to reduce it. This is all based on computer models and many of those models actually predict longer growing seasons and more arable land (which is also what the historical record supports). Quite the opposite of a drought. Rising sea levels? This one is actually smoke and mirrors. Sea levels have actually been rising for centuries (to put it mildly - pretty much since the end of the last Ice Age) and most computer models do not predict any unusual increase in this natural, ongoing process. It just sounds bad because no one mentions that it's been going on forever. The models that do predict catastrophic rises have been used for benchmarks for years and, so far, they have not gotten one single sea level increase prediction right.
Notice a trend here? Every single claim made by proponents of climate change catastrophe is based on computer models - models that either cannot be independantly verified or that get the predictions wrong when attempts to verify are made - and then they claim the debate is closed. Computer models cannot prove anything except the fact that a computer can model something based on input. No other branch of science would be allowed to claim something as proven based only on computer models and I don't think any other branch would try.
Astrophysicists had computer models predicting the existence of black holes for decades before the phenomenon was observed and, until it was observed, it was only a theory. Cosmologists have computer models predicting the existence of dark matter but no other evidence has yet been found, so dark matter is only a theory. Computer models exist that show that a cataclysmic meteor strike of Earth now only has happened but can happen again, yet no one is suggesting a complete upheaval of society to prepare for this possible catastrophe.
:et's be clear: Cleaning up the environment is a good thing and should be done. I always considered myself an environmentalist before that label was stolen by irrational fanatics. Trashing your own home is just stupid! Cleaning the environment, however, can be done without record deficits or social upheaval. If there is no imminent catastrophe then it should be done without record deficits or social upheaval. Until there is more evidence than computer models, the debate is still open and arrogantly refusing to listen helps no one.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
The Great Debate On Climate Change
Here is something I sincerely do not understand. According to current thinking, human-caused global warming is supposed to be one of the biggest threats facing civilization today and everyone who can is expected to spend billions of dollars to combat this threat, with those who won't pay the tab being villified in the most horrible manners available. Yet, according to all of the research I can find, not only is it not proven that there is a true warming trend, it is also not proven that human activity has anything more than a minimal impact on global climate. Even those who support such initiatives as the Kyoto Treaty admit that these enormous expenditures would have only small effects (the most common numbers associated with the Kyoto Treaty seem to indicate an approximately 5 degree increase in global mean temperature over the next century with the full effect of the treaty offsetting that by about one degree). I am not suggesting that anyone should stick their heads in the sand and do nothing about anything, but this seems to be a rather large amount of effort and money for a bunch of maybes, especially when those maybes are counterbalanced by history.
As a point of referance to chew over, we've only been keeping satellite records of climate conditions since 1979. That is an eye blink in global climate terms and yet mean global sea ice levels right now are roughly equal to what they were then. For those of you who were not around (or aware) in 1979, the trendy hysteria of the time was an impending ice age. All of the public experts of the time were predicting it with the same force and assurance that they now use for predicting global warming trends. They were wrong then. What makes them right now? With sea ice levels now equal to what they were then, should we now be worrying about an ice age again instead of global warming?
I don't know about you but, considering the two possibilities, I'll take global warming over an ice age any day. Humanity and human civilization can survive the former much better and more easily than the latter. Warming rearranges some coastal maps, alters some farming areas, and causes some animal extinctions. Glaciation on an ice age scale buries coastal and inland maps, removes large chunks of farmland, and causes mass extinctions on a scale most people cannot comprehend. The known impacts of an ice age would dwarf any predicted impacts of global warming. In simplest terms, global warming means more tropical locations while ice age means more acrtic locations. A gross oversimplification, I admit, but you get the point. Which would you rather have?
I have issued this challenge before but I will issue it again to all of those Chicken Littles out there who want everyone to commit so much resources to battling a maybe:
1. Can you present evidence that there is an abnormal trend in global mean climate, as opposed to routine fluctuations that we know occur?
2. If #1 is yes, can you present evidence that human activity has an appreciable impact on this trend as opposed to, for example, volcanoes and earthquakes?
3. If #1 and #2 are yes, can you present evidence that human activity short of mass depopulation or mass poverty can have an appreciable impact on reversing or otherwise altering the trend?
This is a very simple three step challenge and, if global warming is truly the known threat that adherants claim it to be, there should be no difficulty in answering these questions. The answers (in the positive, even) would appear in numerous peer-reviewed scientific journals that anyone who was seriously interested could easily access and quote and all three must be answered "yes" in order for the current hysteria to be accurate. In reality, however, I have never seen anyone get past #1. There has not yet been one single peer-reviewed article that proves that there is anything other than routine climate fluctuations occurring. That is not to say that there can't be a trend happening, but it hasn't been proven and we have a long way to go before anyone is justified in demonizing someone who asks for more evidence before committing billions.
As a point of referance to chew over, we've only been keeping satellite records of climate conditions since 1979. That is an eye blink in global climate terms and yet mean global sea ice levels right now are roughly equal to what they were then. For those of you who were not around (or aware) in 1979, the trendy hysteria of the time was an impending ice age. All of the public experts of the time were predicting it with the same force and assurance that they now use for predicting global warming trends. They were wrong then. What makes them right now? With sea ice levels now equal to what they were then, should we now be worrying about an ice age again instead of global warming?
I don't know about you but, considering the two possibilities, I'll take global warming over an ice age any day. Humanity and human civilization can survive the former much better and more easily than the latter. Warming rearranges some coastal maps, alters some farming areas, and causes some animal extinctions. Glaciation on an ice age scale buries coastal and inland maps, removes large chunks of farmland, and causes mass extinctions on a scale most people cannot comprehend. The known impacts of an ice age would dwarf any predicted impacts of global warming. In simplest terms, global warming means more tropical locations while ice age means more acrtic locations. A gross oversimplification, I admit, but you get the point. Which would you rather have?
I have issued this challenge before but I will issue it again to all of those Chicken Littles out there who want everyone to commit so much resources to battling a maybe:
1. Can you present evidence that there is an abnormal trend in global mean climate, as opposed to routine fluctuations that we know occur?
2. If #1 is yes, can you present evidence that human activity has an appreciable impact on this trend as opposed to, for example, volcanoes and earthquakes?
3. If #1 and #2 are yes, can you present evidence that human activity short of mass depopulation or mass poverty can have an appreciable impact on reversing or otherwise altering the trend?
This is a very simple three step challenge and, if global warming is truly the known threat that adherants claim it to be, there should be no difficulty in answering these questions. The answers (in the positive, even) would appear in numerous peer-reviewed scientific journals that anyone who was seriously interested could easily access and quote and all three must be answered "yes" in order for the current hysteria to be accurate. In reality, however, I have never seen anyone get past #1. There has not yet been one single peer-reviewed article that proves that there is anything other than routine climate fluctuations occurring. That is not to say that there can't be a trend happening, but it hasn't been proven and we have a long way to go before anyone is justified in demonizing someone who asks for more evidence before committing billions.
Monday, February 2, 2009
The Fine Art Of Exaggeration
I've been putting this one off for days because, quite frankly, reading the never-ending stories about Al Gore going on and on with his little crusade bores me. The man is a complete waste of space and yet news sources across the world continue to give him space as though he were actually someone who mattered. Think about it for a moment. The man served two terms as Vice President in one of the most popular administrations in recent history (and regardless of your personal opinions of Bill Clinton, you must recognize that he was popular) and yet was still unable to turn that popularity into a landslide against a governor with no significant history. All indications are that even his popular boss didn't like him that much. His "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth is full of documented holes and errors yet, now that he has become the poster child for the media darling that is the Climate Change controversy, it seems that he can barely open his mouth without being the center of attention.
[For those of you who might be somewhat satire-impaired, there was no shortage of exaggeration thrown into that opening paragraph to illustrate the point of this particular post. If you cannot grasp that, please do not flame me for your lack.]
While I have exaggerated to some extent, my irritation is no less real. It infuriates me that a man with no scientific background or training received a Nobel prize for a scientific subject just because that subject happens to be the current cause celebre. It drives me insane that this man is now looked to as an expert on anything other than politics and advertising. He, however, stays true to form, no matter how often the mainstream media wants to overlook that form.
Al Gore's form is hyperbole, plain and simple. Even when he is approaching being right, Gore apparently cannot help but blow up the significance of what he is saying so that it seems more important and so, by extension, he seems more important. In his latest speech to Congress concerning Global Warming, Gore stated, "This is the one challenge that could completely end human civilization ..." Even Gore's supporters have to be cringing at such a blatant exaggeration.
There are so many things wrong with this statement.
Even if we assume that Gore is right about Global Warming and it is every bit as potentially disastrous as he claims, it would be far from the only challenge facing the world with the possibility of "end[ing] human civilization". For decades, the threat of nuclear annihilation was the number boogeyman for those who believed that we were on the brink of extinction. Despite being somewhat mitigated with the ending of the Cold War, this threat still holds at least as much danger as Climate Change. Add in the possibility of terrorists and rogue states and this threat must surmount Climate change as a potential civilization ender. Spend just a few minutes on the internet and I'm sure you could find at least a dozen more challenges that could potentially end human civilization.
The bigger problem with this portion of the statement is that we can't assume that Gore is right. The number of respected scientists who disagree with the popular consensus on Climate Change is not insignificant. It is, in fact, about as large as the number of respected scientists who argue for Climate Change, even if the mainstream media refuses to publicise that fact. In short, the jury is still out and, while it is prudent to take care of your home, such prudence does not mean that your home is on the verge of destruction.
My biggest problem with this statement, however, is the simple fact that it is wrong. Even if everything else that Global Warming advocates maintain is true, not even the worst case scenario of Global Warming could end human civilization. It is a cannard that even Hollywood could not turn into a decent disaster movie. A worst case scenario would certainly change human civilization, but it wouldn't end it. Beach front property might take on a new meaning and a fairly dramatic death toll would be almost guaranteed, but civilization itself would step over this hurdle with hardly an altered stride. No one other than Hollywood is claiming that there would be no arable land left or that the disasters that Global Warming might cause would all come rushing down in a matter of weeks and, make no mistake, it would require something of that magnitude to end human civilization.
It would seem, then, that Mr. Gore has been spending too much time lately with his celebrity sycophants and is incapable of speaking without hyperbole. That being the case, this is entirely too important a discussion for him to even be involved. We do not need exaggeration-prone storytellers debating the fate of the world. We need thinking people who will use reason and facts rather than fear and distortion. I guess that means that we do not need politicians involved at all but, for the moment, I would be satisfied if Gore would fade into the obscurity he has earned.
[For those of you who might be somewhat satire-impaired, there was no shortage of exaggeration thrown into that opening paragraph to illustrate the point of this particular post. If you cannot grasp that, please do not flame me for your lack.]
While I have exaggerated to some extent, my irritation is no less real. It infuriates me that a man with no scientific background or training received a Nobel prize for a scientific subject just because that subject happens to be the current cause celebre. It drives me insane that this man is now looked to as an expert on anything other than politics and advertising. He, however, stays true to form, no matter how often the mainstream media wants to overlook that form.
Al Gore's form is hyperbole, plain and simple. Even when he is approaching being right, Gore apparently cannot help but blow up the significance of what he is saying so that it seems more important and so, by extension, he seems more important. In his latest speech to Congress concerning Global Warming, Gore stated, "This is the one challenge that could completely end human civilization ..." Even Gore's supporters have to be cringing at such a blatant exaggeration.
There are so many things wrong with this statement.
Even if we assume that Gore is right about Global Warming and it is every bit as potentially disastrous as he claims, it would be far from the only challenge facing the world with the possibility of "end[ing] human civilization". For decades, the threat of nuclear annihilation was the number boogeyman for those who believed that we were on the brink of extinction. Despite being somewhat mitigated with the ending of the Cold War, this threat still holds at least as much danger as Climate Change. Add in the possibility of terrorists and rogue states and this threat must surmount Climate change as a potential civilization ender. Spend just a few minutes on the internet and I'm sure you could find at least a dozen more challenges that could potentially end human civilization.
The bigger problem with this portion of the statement is that we can't assume that Gore is right. The number of respected scientists who disagree with the popular consensus on Climate Change is not insignificant. It is, in fact, about as large as the number of respected scientists who argue for Climate Change, even if the mainstream media refuses to publicise that fact. In short, the jury is still out and, while it is prudent to take care of your home, such prudence does not mean that your home is on the verge of destruction.
My biggest problem with this statement, however, is the simple fact that it is wrong. Even if everything else that Global Warming advocates maintain is true, not even the worst case scenario of Global Warming could end human civilization. It is a cannard that even Hollywood could not turn into a decent disaster movie. A worst case scenario would certainly change human civilization, but it wouldn't end it. Beach front property might take on a new meaning and a fairly dramatic death toll would be almost guaranteed, but civilization itself would step over this hurdle with hardly an altered stride. No one other than Hollywood is claiming that there would be no arable land left or that the disasters that Global Warming might cause would all come rushing down in a matter of weeks and, make no mistake, it would require something of that magnitude to end human civilization.
It would seem, then, that Mr. Gore has been spending too much time lately with his celebrity sycophants and is incapable of speaking without hyperbole. That being the case, this is entirely too important a discussion for him to even be involved. We do not need exaggeration-prone storytellers debating the fate of the world. We need thinking people who will use reason and facts rather than fear and distortion. I guess that means that we do not need politicians involved at all but, for the moment, I would be satisfied if Gore would fade into the obscurity he has earned.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Truth In Advertising
I have a question that has puzzled me for quite some time and if any of you even think you might have an answer, I would be much obliged for the input. Why is it that those people who claim to be delivering moral messages do not feel bound by any notion of truth or honesty? I'm sure I've commented on this more than once at various times in the past and concerning various groups and messages, but it has dawned on me that it is a trend that is more than a little alarming.
One of the most obvious examples is that organization that goes by the misnomer of truth.com. Not only do they fail the basic manners test (Does anyone know of an advertiser who tries harder to be rude, disgusting, and tasteless?) but they make a double mockery by calling themselves "truth" while spouting constant lies. I'm sure there are those of you (especially the non-smokers) who are just sputtering at me right now. "They point out that smoking kills! That is not a lie!" No, that is not a lie. I, a smoker, freely state that. Why, then, do they abandon this honest high ground with their hyperbolic commercials? If you think I am exagerating, start jotting down their death numbers whenever you see one of their commercials. It shouldn't take long at all to realize that not one of those commercials agrees with another when it comes to numbers. The reason for this is simplicity itself: there are no hard numbers. Medical research has failed to reach any consensus on exactly what role smoking plays in "smoking-related" deaths and no one has any real clue how many people a year die as a result of smoking. The fact of the matter is that most of those "smoking-related" deaths also include so many other poor health or bad risk factors that no true numbers are even possible. That doesn't stop the good people at truth.com from throwing out those numbers as though they alone had the hard facts.
Environmentalist are another group of moral preachers who have a less than favorable relationship with the truth. This is another area where there is so much research and so little hard consensus that you would think anyone with a rational commitment to morality could not possibly utter any more direct statement than "we do some things that we should not do but we do not know exactly what impact those things have." Instead, we have prophets of doom who want to tell us exactly what we are doing wrong and exactly what we must do to fix it. Again these people do begin with a moral high ground. There are things that we are doing wrong - Poluting the planet makes no more sense than fouling your own bed! - and there are things that we know that we could do better. There are many things that we do not know, however. Take Global Warming, for instance (and while you're doing so, please do not overlook the fact that they have craftily changed the name to "global climate change"). Thirty years ago the boogyman was the next ice age (we were, according to the same so-called scientific consensus that the press is throwing around today, long overdue) but now, in such a short amount of time, we are cooking the planet through our own behavior. Short of all-out thermonuclear war, I am hard pressed to conceive of any way that we could change the entire planet in so short an amount of time. Never mind that the actual predictions are a measly 5-10 degrees over 100 years. Never mind that even those numbers do not account for continuing scientific advancement that may or may not offset such changes. [For comparison purposes, it was widely believed in the 70's by certain people in the scientific community that we would be seeing global famine and catastrophe by the 1990's caused by overpopulation if we did not take drastic steps immediately. Not only did we not take those drastic steps, our population actually increased faster than those people feared and yet, no global famine or catastrophe occured. The reason for this is that our scientific advancement progressed at the same accelerated rate and we became able to feed people at more and more efficient rates. The same principle could quite likely apply to the current "imminent crisis".] Never mind the fact that those numbers are coming from the very same people who cannot accurately be depended upon to predict tomorrow's weather! According to the loudest voices in the environmental movements, we are all doomed (and evil to boot) if we do not take exactly the steps they decree immediately.
I will let one more example stand for the whole.
If you receive email forwards as often as I do, you have no doubt seen the dire warnings of the removal of religious liberties from public places. They are removing God from our schools (never mind the long list of federal laws expressly protecting religious liberties on school campuses, from equal access to church related student groups to religious exceptions to various school activities). They are removing God from the public square (never mind the federal laws that expressly require equal access there either). They are removing God from our politics (never mind the religious litmus test that every president we have ever elected has had to pass). They are removing God from television (never mind the fact that TV stations are privately owned and can show almost anything they want assuming there are enough viewers to secure advertising and that the programs do not violate certain decency standards, standards that have been established by the same religion groups passing these emails, oddly enough). I do not deny that there have been over-zealous individuals who have done (or tried to do) every one of these things but they have been slapped down in every case by the same laws that these emails claim are removing your liberties. If you are Christian, there is no concerted effort to remove your religious liberties and, in this country at least, never has been.
This is a small list of examples to which I am sure we could all add many, many more. Most of the people who pass around these falsehoods are honest people who simply believe what people they trust have told them to believe. The fact that lies are being spread by honest people does not, however, stop them from being lies. It only means that honest people need to be more diligent in the efforts to verify the information they pass along as fact.
One of the most obvious examples is that organization that goes by the misnomer of truth.com. Not only do they fail the basic manners test (Does anyone know of an advertiser who tries harder to be rude, disgusting, and tasteless?) but they make a double mockery by calling themselves "truth" while spouting constant lies. I'm sure there are those of you (especially the non-smokers) who are just sputtering at me right now. "They point out that smoking kills! That is not a lie!" No, that is not a lie. I, a smoker, freely state that. Why, then, do they abandon this honest high ground with their hyperbolic commercials? If you think I am exagerating, start jotting down their death numbers whenever you see one of their commercials. It shouldn't take long at all to realize that not one of those commercials agrees with another when it comes to numbers. The reason for this is simplicity itself: there are no hard numbers. Medical research has failed to reach any consensus on exactly what role smoking plays in "smoking-related" deaths and no one has any real clue how many people a year die as a result of smoking. The fact of the matter is that most of those "smoking-related" deaths also include so many other poor health or bad risk factors that no true numbers are even possible. That doesn't stop the good people at truth.com from throwing out those numbers as though they alone had the hard facts.
Environmentalist are another group of moral preachers who have a less than favorable relationship with the truth. This is another area where there is so much research and so little hard consensus that you would think anyone with a rational commitment to morality could not possibly utter any more direct statement than "we do some things that we should not do but we do not know exactly what impact those things have." Instead, we have prophets of doom who want to tell us exactly what we are doing wrong and exactly what we must do to fix it. Again these people do begin with a moral high ground. There are things that we are doing wrong - Poluting the planet makes no more sense than fouling your own bed! - and there are things that we know that we could do better. There are many things that we do not know, however. Take Global Warming, for instance (and while you're doing so, please do not overlook the fact that they have craftily changed the name to "global climate change"). Thirty years ago the boogyman was the next ice age (we were, according to the same so-called scientific consensus that the press is throwing around today, long overdue) but now, in such a short amount of time, we are cooking the planet through our own behavior. Short of all-out thermonuclear war, I am hard pressed to conceive of any way that we could change the entire planet in so short an amount of time. Never mind that the actual predictions are a measly 5-10 degrees over 100 years. Never mind that even those numbers do not account for continuing scientific advancement that may or may not offset such changes. [For comparison purposes, it was widely believed in the 70's by certain people in the scientific community that we would be seeing global famine and catastrophe by the 1990's caused by overpopulation if we did not take drastic steps immediately. Not only did we not take those drastic steps, our population actually increased faster than those people feared and yet, no global famine or catastrophe occured. The reason for this is that our scientific advancement progressed at the same accelerated rate and we became able to feed people at more and more efficient rates. The same principle could quite likely apply to the current "imminent crisis".] Never mind the fact that those numbers are coming from the very same people who cannot accurately be depended upon to predict tomorrow's weather! According to the loudest voices in the environmental movements, we are all doomed (and evil to boot) if we do not take exactly the steps they decree immediately.
I will let one more example stand for the whole.
If you receive email forwards as often as I do, you have no doubt seen the dire warnings of the removal of religious liberties from public places. They are removing God from our schools (never mind the long list of federal laws expressly protecting religious liberties on school campuses, from equal access to church related student groups to religious exceptions to various school activities). They are removing God from the public square (never mind the federal laws that expressly require equal access there either). They are removing God from our politics (never mind the religious litmus test that every president we have ever elected has had to pass). They are removing God from television (never mind the fact that TV stations are privately owned and can show almost anything they want assuming there are enough viewers to secure advertising and that the programs do not violate certain decency standards, standards that have been established by the same religion groups passing these emails, oddly enough). I do not deny that there have been over-zealous individuals who have done (or tried to do) every one of these things but they have been slapped down in every case by the same laws that these emails claim are removing your liberties. If you are Christian, there is no concerted effort to remove your religious liberties and, in this country at least, never has been.
This is a small list of examples to which I am sure we could all add many, many more. Most of the people who pass around these falsehoods are honest people who simply believe what people they trust have told them to believe. The fact that lies are being spread by honest people does not, however, stop them from being lies. It only means that honest people need to be more diligent in the efforts to verify the information they pass along as fact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)