|
Newsletter (March 26, 2010)
Above the FoldTomorrow morning in Philadelphia, Calvin Beisner (Cornwall Alliance), Nancy Pearcey (author of Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity), and David Legates (University of Delaware Climatologist) will address the science, economics, and Christian worldview implications of the global warming debate.
Read more and register online.In this issue
Featured- When to Doubt a Scientific 'Consensus'
- How Alarmists Make Data Look Scary When They're Not
Debate- 'Avatar' Bashes American Values
- Members of Congress, States, Scientists, Business Groups File Petitions for EPA to Reconsider CO2 Endangerment Finding
- Treason Is a Matter of Dates
Science- Does High Urban CO2 Concentration Threaten Health?
- Row Over Leaked Climate Emails May Undermine Reputation of Science
- Wind Contributing to Arctic Sea Ice Loss, Study Finds
- Don't Blame Cows for Climate Change
Economics- An Estimate of the Economic Impact of a Cap-and-Trade Auction Tax on California
Upcoming Events
Briefly Noted
Meet the Critics: Timothy F. Ball, Ph.D.
Landmark Documents from the Cornwall Alliance
Featuredby Jay W. Richards
Visiting Fellow, Heritage Foundation; Author, Money, Greed, and God
American, March 16, 2010
. . . One of the benefits of the recent Climategate scandal, which revealed leading climate scientists manipulating data, methods, and peer review to exaggerate the evidence of significant global warming, may be to permanently deflate the rhetorical value of the phrase “scientific consensus.”
. . . Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd. Many false ideas enjoyed consensus opinion at one time. Indeed, the “power of the paradigm” often shapes the thinking of scientists so strongly that they become unable to accurately summarize, let alone evaluate, radical alternatives. Question the paradigm, and some respond with dogmatic fanaticism.
We shouldn’t, of course, forget the other side of the coin. There are always cranks and conspiracy theorists. No matter how well founded a scientific consensus, there’s someone somewhere—easily accessible online—that thinks it’s all hokum. Sometimes these folks turn out to be right. But often, they’re just cranks whose counsel is best disregarded.
. . . How is the ordinary citizen to distinguish, as Andrew Coyne puts it, “between genuine authority and mere received wisdom? Conversely, how do we tell crankish imperviousness to evidence from legitimate skepticism?” . . . When can you doubt a consensus? When should you doubt it?
Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, maintains, and communicates the ostensible consensus. I don’t know of any exhaustive list of signs of suspicion, but, using climate change as a test study, I propose this checklist as a rough-and-ready list of signs for when to consider doubting a scientific “consensus,” whatever the subject. One of these signs may be enough to give pause. If they start to pile up, then it’s wise to be suspicious.
(1) When different claims get bundled together.
Usually, in scientific disputes, there is more than one claim at issue. With global warming, there’s the claim that our planet, on average, is getting warmer. There’s also the claim that human emissions are the main cause of it, that it’s going to be catastrophic, and that we have to transform civilization to deal with it. These are all different assertions with different bases of evidence. Evidence for warming, for instance, isn’t evidence for the cause of that warming. All the polar bears could drown, the glaciers melt, the sea levels rise 20 feet, Newfoundland become a popular place to tan, and that wouldn’t tell us a thing about what caused the warming. This is a matter of logic, not scientific evidence. The effect is not the same as the cause.
There’s a lot more agreement about (1) a modest warming trend since about 1850 than there is about (2) the cause of that trend. There’s even less agreement about (3) the dangers of that trend, or of (4) what to do about it. But these four propositions are frequently bundled together, so that if you doubt one, you’re labeled a climate change “skeptic” or “denier.” That’s just plain intellectually dishonest. When well-established claims are fused with separate, more controversial claims, and the entire conglomeration is covered with the label “consensus,” you have reason for doubt.
(2) When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate. . . .
(3) When scientists are pressured to toe the party line. . . .
(4) When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish. . . .
(5) When dissenting opinions are excluded from the relevant peer-reviewed literature not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but as part of a strategy to marginalize dissent. . . .
(6) When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented. . . .
(7) When consensus is declared hurriedly or before it even exists. . . .
(8) When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus. . . .
(9) When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution. . . .
(10) When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies. . . .
(11) When the “consensus” is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with uncritical and partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as objectively as possible. . . .
(12) When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top by E. Calvin Beisner
National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
March 19, 2010
Today a headline that caught my eye prompted me to go to the National Snow and Ice Data Center to take a look at what's been happening with Arctic sea ice lately--as far, anyway, as one can trust the data there. (There are reasons to take it all with a grain of salt.)
Here's a graph they offer depicting changes in Arctic monthly sea ice extent from February 1979 through February 2010.
Looks pretty alarming, doesn't it?
But look over at the Y-axis (left). Notice where it starts? At 14.0. That's an immediate tip-off that this graph is designed to exaggerate the magnitude of change and the rate of trend. . . .
The next two graphs depict roughly the same raw numbers as those shown in the linear trend (straight) line in the graph above. I eyeballed the start and end points and then created a linear trend between them. The first one uses the same Y-axis as the one above: 14-17:
The second uses a 0 baseline but the same maximum of 17:
The lines in the two graphs depict exactly the same numbers. But which one looks scarier? Obviously, the first. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top Debateby Loredana Vuoto
President, Eloquence, LLC; Managing Editor, Reflections
March, 2010
. . . Only in Hollywood is it chic to be anti-American, anti-military, anti-human and anti-God—and embrace global warming extremism to boot. By contrast, the majority of Americans are proud of their country, their military and their Christian roots.
In Avatar, worshipping God is replaced by worshipping nature. Defending and worshipping nature, specifically, a giant tree, becomes the salvo of the Na’vi people. Such tree-loving pantheism makes a mockery of God and religion. This runs contrary to the convictions of the roughly three-quarters of all Americans who are Christians. According to a Gallup poll in 2003, 95 percent of Americans believe in God and 60 percent say religion plays a very important role in their lives. Americans are a religious people with more than half attending church at least once a month. . . .
Read the rest.
Related item:
Blockbuster Film Avatar Betrays God, Humanity, and America--But It’s Great Movie Making
by E. Calvin Beisner
National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
March 19, 2010Back to top by E. Calvin Beisner
National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
March 20, 2010
. . . Eight petitions for reconsideration have been filed demanding that the EPA reconsider and reverse its endangerment finding. They're filled with damning information about the process that yielded the information on which she and her agency relied. And she must know that if EPA refuses to back down, these are going to become the basis of lawsuits that will put her and her agency in court in front of judges who aren't going to be bamboozled quite so easily as the world's environmental journalists have been.
Here, from the EPA's own web page, is a list of the petitions for review filed thus far--by members of Congress, state attorneys general, scientists, specific businesses, industry associations, think tanks, and more. The granddaddy of them all is the one by Peabody Energy Company, but those eager to know the basis of complaints against the endangerment finding will find plenty of good information on the EPA's legal and scientific failings in any of these.
- Arthur Randol – Petition for Reconsideration (PDF) (12 pp, 169K)
- Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America – Petition for Reconsideration and for Stay Pending Reconsideration (PDF) (38 pp, 120K)
- Coalition for Responsible Regulation et al. – Petition for Reconsideration (PDF) (40 pp, 571K)
- Commonwealth of Virginia – Petition for Reconsideration (PDF) (5 pp, 273K)
- Competitive Enterprise Institute et al. – Petition for Reconsideration (PDF) (13 pp, 3.82MB)
- Pacific Legal Foundation – Petition for Reconsideration (PDF) (58 pp, 461K)
- Peabody Energy Company – Petition for Reconsideration (PDF) (238 pp, 1.04MB)
- Southeastern Legal Foundation et al. – Petition for Reconsideration (PDF) (28 pp, 236K)
- State of Texas – Petition for Reconsideration (PDF) (38 pp, 1.28MB)
- The Ohio Coal Association – Petition for Reconsideration (PDF) (11 pp, 97K)
Read the rest.
Related item:
The Texas Petition Against the U.S. EPA's Endangerment Finding: A User's Guide
by Paul C. Knappenberger
Administrator, World Climate Report; Writer, MasterResource
March 18, 2010Back to top by Walter Russell Mead
Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations; Staff Member, Foreign Affairs; Editorial Board Member, American Interest
March 3, 2010
These days, it’s The New York Times that is redefining treason. Three weeks ago, anyone who pointed at the lack of public confidence in climate science was aiding and abetting those horrible climate ‘deniers.’ Treason against Planet Earth! You had to be some kind of dread ‘right wing blogger’ or talk radio host to point out that blunders and arrogance had undermined the credibility of climate scientists and ended any short term chance of serious global agreement on urgent measures to stop global warming.
But a story this morning by John Broder gently lets Times readers know that something has gone badly wrong.
WASHINGTON — For months, climate scientists have taken a vicious beating in the media and on the Internet, accused of hiding data, covering up errors and suppressing alternate views. Their response until now has been largely to assert the legitimacy of the vast body of climate science and to mock their critics as cranks and know-nothings.
But the volume of criticism and the depth of doubt have only grown, and many scientists now realize they are facing a crisis of public confidence and have to fight back. Tentatively and grudgingly, they are beginning to engage their critics, admit mistakes, open up their data and reshape the way they conduct their work. . . . Read the rest.Back to top Scienceby E. Calvin Beisner
National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
March 23, 2010
Proponents of carbon-dioxide emissions reductions, seeing the scientific basis for them as a means to reduce global warming collapsing in the wake of Climategate and the many other revelations of corruption of the scientific process by anthropogenic global warming alarmists, are looking for other justifications for their aims.
Many of them cheered when a Stanford scientist published a study that claimed that "Urban CO2 Domes" indirectly increase the risk of premature death for city dwellers. Science Daily reported prominently on the article. The ever-dependable wolf-crier Grist.org trumpeted the message. The Financial Times picked up the story. New Republic blogger Bradford Plumer sounded the alarm.
But what few of them stopped to do was to ask how credible the study's findings were. Actually reading the study's full text rather than just its summary (the journalist's and advocate's usual practice) might have given them pause--especially if the readers had even an elementary grasp of statistical significance. When I read it, I immediately wondered how robust its results were and suspected that there likely were problems of statistical significance involved. Sure enough, there were.
As scientists Sherwood Idso, Keith Idso, and Craig Idso--who have specialized for years in studying the effects of carbon dioxide on plant and animal life and published many peer-reviewed studies in the field--pointed out in their critique of the study, there are serious signs in the article itself that its findings are only weakly supported and, even if true, hardly of great significance.
The Idsos point out that
the many complex phenomena that are modeled by Jacobson are simply not well enough known to be quantitatively defined to the precision that is needed to derive meaningful results from the small CO2 perturbations that are associated with the urban CO2 dome phenomenon. He reports, for example, that urban CO2 dome increases in California increased the population-weighted air temperature there by only 0.0063°C, while it increased the state's domain-averaged air temperature by a measly 0.00046°C. These increases, in turn, led to correspondingly small increases in near-surface O3 and PM2.5 concentrations, which were then input to statistical correlations that had been derived between these parameters and premature mortality. That is, the modeled quantities are so tiny, with respect to such a large and complex system as local atmospheric, that they simply lack credibility. The study's author, Mark Jacobsen, even admits as much in the published article.
Read the rest.Back to top by Richard Gray
Science Correspondent, Telegraph
March 7, 2010
Climate change researchers at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) are accused of withholding raw data and the computer code they used to generate results despite repeated requests for the information to be released publicly.
The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) and the Royal Statistical Society (RSS) have both issued statements declaring that it is essential that scientific data and evidence compiled by researchers be made publicly available for scrutiny. . . .
The RSC said: "The apparent resistance of researchers from the CRU at the University of East Anglia to disclose research data has been widely portrayed as an indication of a lack of integrity in scientific research. . . .
Read the rest.
Related items:
Memorandum Submitted by the Institute of Physics
Letter from Fred Singer
Memorandum Submitted by the Royal Society of Chemistry
Memorandum Submitted by the Royal Statistical SocietyBack to top by David Adam
Environment Correspondent, Guardian
March 22, 2010
Much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is down to the region's swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming, a new study reveals.
Ice blown out of the region by Arctic winds can explain around one-third of the steep downward trend in sea ice extent in the region since 1979, the scientists say. . . .
Masayo Ogi, a scientist with the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology in Yokohama, and her colleagues, looked at records of how winds have behaved across the Arctic since satellite measurements of ice extent there began in 1979. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top UC Davis News & Information, December 7, 2009
Despite oft-repeated claims by sources ranging from the United Nations to music star Paul McCartney, it is simply not true that consuming less meat and dairy products will help stop climate change, says a University of California authority on farming and greenhouse gases.
UC Davis Associate Professor and Air Quality Specialist Frank Mitloehner says that McCartney and the chair of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ignored science last week when they launched a European campaign called "Less Meat = Less Heat." The launch came on the eve of a major international climate summit, which runs today through Dec. 18 in Copenhagen.
McCartney and others, such as the promoters of "meatless Mondays," seem to be well-intentioned but not well-schooled in the complex relationships among human activities, animal digestion, food production and atmospheric chemistry, says Mitloehner. . . .
Read the rest.
Related item:
Clearing the Air: Livestock's Contributions to Climate Change (PowerPoint PDF)
by Frank Mitloehner
Associate Professor & UC CE Specialist, UC Davis
September 9, 2009
UN Admits Flaw in Report on Meat and Cliamte Change
by Alastair Jamieson
Reporter, Telegraph
March 24, 2010Back to top Economicsby Thomas Tanton
Fellow in Environmental Studies, Pacific Research Institute; Adjunct Scholar, Institute for Energy Research; President, T2 & Associates
March, 2010
Summary
We have estimated the following impacts:
- An annual effective cost increase to the typical family of four to be $818 the first year growing to $2800 in 2020, if market clearing prices for permits are $60 dollars per ton. Those figures are $270 and $930 if permit prices are at $20 and as much as $2720 to over $9330 per family if prices clear at $200 per ton. Costs increase for most goods and services. These cost increases are average for the population, although some residents may be compensated through a partial return of auction revenues.
- Annual job losses to the California Economy of 76,000 to 107,000 the first year growing to perhaps 485,000 jobs in 2020, assuming a market clearing price of $60 per ton. These are net jobs losses, accounting for lost jobs and for jobs created by redirecting revenues collected from the auctions.
- Lost economic activity of nearly 2% of gross state product, or about $250 to 350 billion over ten years. Much of this derives from reductions in productivity across the economy, and negative trade implications due to reduced competitiveness.
There is uncertainty about how auction revenues would be re-distributed in the economy. To the extent the revenue is captured in a special fund under the control of CARB, the legislature would have limited state budget authority and flexibility. This is a significant concern given the potentially large amount of revenue (collecting in 8 years, fully 120% of the single year 2009/2010 state budget) to be raised by an auction tax.
Read the rest.
Related item:
California Watchdog Sees Climate Policy Job Losses
by Peter Henderson & Gary Hill
Reuters, March 9, 2010Back to top Upcoming EventsFriends of Coal Tennessee and the Tennessee Mining Association are hosting Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer for a screening of their documentary, Mine Your Own Business on April 7, 2010, at 7:30 p.m. at the historic Belcourt Theatre, Nashville, Tenn. Doors will open at 6:30 p.m. and a brief panel discussion will begin at 7:00 p.m., followed by the movie starting at 7:30 p.m. Tickets can be purchased for $5.00 plus a small processing fee on the Belcourt Theatre website. Proceeds from the event support Friends of Coal Tennessee. . . .
Register online.Back to top The purpose of ICCC-4 is the same as it was for the first three events: to build momentum and public awareness of the global warming “realism” movement, a network of scientists, economists, policymakers, and concerned citizens who believe sound science and economics, rather than exaggeration and hype, ought to determine what actions, if any, are taken to address the problem of climate change. Speakers will include over a hundred scientists, economists, and other scholars from around the world.
Register online.Back to top Briefly NotedBeisner: Poor Scandanavia! Coldest Winter in 15 Years Traps Ships in Baltic Ice
Maindola: Global Warming Has No Impact on Himalayas Claims Wadia Director
Bradly, Jr: Reconsidering the Dessler/North Op-Ed on Settled Alarm, Climategate-as-Distraction
Noguchi: Green Party in California Trying to Stem Shrinking NumbersBack to top Meet the CriticsMeet the Critics gives you basic information on 64 of the leading critics of dangerous manmade global warming. Today's critic:
Timothy F. Ball, Ph.D.
Former head of Friends of Science and Climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, Tim Ball is currently chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a senior fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, and a frequent writer for Tech Central Station, Canada Free Press, and other magazines. One of the first Canadians to hold a Ph.D. in Climatology, Ball has reconstructed historical climate change records and studied warming's effects, concluding that "[Catastrophic manmade global warming] is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy, and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification." A few samples of Ball's publications include The Science Isn't Settled - The Limitations of Global Climate Models, Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?, Warmer Is Better, Gore Getting Desperate Proof Public Cooling on GW Hoax, and, delivered at the 2008 ICCC, Climate Is a Generalist Discipline.
Back to top Landmark Documents from the Cornwall Alliance
E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., National Spokesman
Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, http://www.cornwallalliance.org/
Information in this newsletter is for scholarly and educational use only and may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright holders.
|
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
