| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TKKenyon Intern


Joined: 30 Sep 2007 Posts: 40 Local time: 6:00 PM

|
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:01 pm Post subject: Global Warming: The Rise of a New Religion |
|
|
Morning Edition on NPR recently produced a puff piece ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89619306 ) about Kristen Bynes, blogger of Ponder the Maunder, a blog dedicated to refuting the idea that global warming is a man-made phenomenon.
While the issue of a 16 yo kid becoming a leading global warming contrarian is devastating for the contrary view's validity as a scientific theory, and it seems that she indeed attended a short course at UGoog in Climate Science to arrive at her pre-ordained conclusions (which is the complete antithesis of how science should be conducted,) and that NPR is succumbing to natural selection by lowest common denominator, it seems that there is more to this story.
Personally, I’m not sold on the whole idea of global warming, man-made or not. I used to be. I was upset by the enormous amounts of CO2 that we humans were venting into the atmosphere, just like we exhaust raw sewage into our oceans, etc., etc., etc. And, you know, it seemed warmer, discounting that horrendous Iowa winter of 1995 when temps hit -40F and the Iowa River froze over. You can eliminate outliers in your data, as long as you can account for them, or at least make a nice statistical argument for ignoring them. It seemed that the consensus of the scientific community is that man-made global warming is a threat, and I generally go along with scientific consensus unless there’s a valid reason to doubt, and it had better be a good one. I don’t like the contrarian position.
I do, however, like data. Hard data. Preferably raw, pre-crunched data.
Here’s what changed my mind on global warming: I read that horrible anti-GW novel by Michael Crichton, which so sticks in my mind that I can’t recall the title, and I thought that his novel was so badly written that surely its conclusions can be tossed aside with great force. Crichton is both a horrid novelist and merely an MD.
(Yes, I am arrogant to snark so widely. I hold a fiction MFA from Iowa, where I received many prizes, and have published two well-received novels. During my PhD work in microbiology, I taught medical students in a Midwestern medical school. They’re great at memorizing things but, let’s face it, medical school does not reward original thought nor critical thinking. Their exams are multiple-guess. So, I’m snarky and arrogant. Crichton has loads more money than I have and a huge house on Kauai. He can take the shot.)
So, I set out on my own course of study at UGoog. I expected to quickly dismiss Crichton’s objections with data and confirm the majority opinion. It seems like an overwhelming opinion. I figured it would take an hour.
Here’s what I found: the global warming data is terrible. The methods that collected the data that produced the scary graph that we’ve all seen (where temperature spikes up in the 1970’s) are beyond shaky. It’s really bad science. I read the whole UN report, and the data that is cited in the prologue, which everyone reads, is a minor part of the whole report. Only surface temps, and only those in major urban areas, are going up. Atmospheric temperatures are not. This is to be expected by the “heat island” effect, where asphalt retains more heat than soil and re-radiates this heat at night.
Personally, I’m on the fence. The data behind GW, whether man-made or not, sucks. Here’s the problem: whenever you say that the data sucks, people jump on you like you insulted Jesus. They label you a “denialist” and, rather than debate the data, accuse you of wanting to rape the planet.
The global warming debate has moved from the arena of science, where one is free to debate data, methods, and conclusions, and into the area of religion, where one must adhere to dogma or else risk retribution.
That’s a huge problem.
When I published a short blog post about this ( http://science4non-majors.blogspot.com/2007/11/hoax-of-global-warming-john-coleman.html ), I got hate mail. Not refute mail. Not argue mail. Hate mail.
Even though my blog post encouraged recycling and conservation, people accused me of trying to destroy the planet.
The debate about global warming must return to being a debate, not a tirade, not a crusade, and not a sermon.
TK Kenyon
http://science4non-majors.blogspot.com/ _________________ TK Kenyon
www.TKKenyon.com
Author of RABID: A Novel and CALLOUS: A Novel
RABID: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1601640021
CALLOUS: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1601640226
"debut novelist Kenyon isn't fooling around. [Rabid] metamorphoses into a philosophical battle between science and religion. Kenyon is definitely an author to watch." --Booklist Starred Review |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
 |
gnosis Forum Leader


Joined: 27 Feb 2008 Posts: 1870 Local time: 6:00 PM Location: California

|
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:09 pm Post subject: Re: Global Warming: The Rise of a New Religion |
|
|
| TKKenyon wrote: |
The debate about global warming must return to being a debate, not a tirade, not a crusade, and not a sermon.
|
Just like the "debate" about evolution and intelligent design, right?
I would like you to please back up your claims of "terrible data" and "bad science" with some actual examples and facts, if you truly want an "honest debate" about the subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sal1981 Do you hear me now?

Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 2795 Local time: 11:00 PM Location: Behind the computer

|
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hear hear. _________________ "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman
"Why not just make your null hypothesis be that..." - Philosophos
Last edited by Sal1981 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jason_Harvestdancer WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!

Joined: 23 Oct 2005 Posts: 2274 Local time: 3:00 PM Location: Northern LA County, CA
|
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:14 pm Post subject: Re: Global Warming: The Rise of a New Religion |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | | TKKenyon wrote: |
The debate about global warming must return to being a debate, not a tirade, not a crusade, and not a sermon.
|
Just like the "debate" about evolution and intelligent design, right?
I would like you to please back up your claims of "terrible data" and "bad science" with some actual examples and facts, if you truly want an "honest debate" about the subject. |
Nice analogy. AGW is very much like ID, as some people cannot imagine a complex system without intelligent control. _________________ Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.
LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.
Visit my wife's art gallery |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
romans120 Moderator


Joined: 14 Aug 2007 Posts: 1816 Local time: 6:00 PM Location: mid-west
|
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I afraid science got thrown out the window as soon as politics got involved. I personally think man-made GW is another prank by the same people that brought us Y2K. I'm no scientist but when I start seeing junk thats obviously propaganda *ahem - "an inconvenient truth"* then their obviously wasn't enough science to fill the script so somebody said lets just make stuff up. BTW - if you can reproduce some of the raw data and show thats is sucky data it would probably help stimulate debate here _________________ The Resident Theist
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20
Check out my weblog at http://romans120.wordpress.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pekkle Intern

Joined: 21 Mar 2008 Posts: 72 Local time: 6:00 PM
|
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I used to be very concerned about global warming, but I've started to become very suspicious.
We've been cooling since 1998 after all, and 2008 is the coldest year in the past 10.
In addition the antartic has grown larger than it ever has since we've been recording it's mass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gnosis Forum Leader


Joined: 27 Feb 2008 Posts: 1870 Local time: 6:00 PM Location: California

|
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:24 pm Post subject: Re: Global Warming: The Rise of a New Religion |
|
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: |
Nice analogy. AGW is very much like ID, as some people cannot imagine a complex system without intelligent control. |
Are you saying that the science behind global warming is just as credible as the philosophy behind intelligent design? I'm sorry Jason, but I was making the opposite analogy. Intelligent design is the willful denial of scientific fact just like global warming "debunking" is, to support a preconceived notion of how the world works.
The OP makes a reference to surface temperatures as opposed to atmospheric temperatures. What about greenhouse gases?
Is the OP unaware of the data surrounding the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the science behind the greenhouse effect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Moloth Coin Operated Boy

Joined: 27 Aug 2003 Posts: 22595 Local time: 6:00 PM Location: Warner Robins, GA

|
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| romans120 wrote: | | I afraid science got thrown out the window as soon as politics got involved. I personally think man-made GW is another prank by the same people that brought us Y2K. I'm no scientist but when I start seeing junk thats obviously propaganda *ahem - "an inconvenient truth"* then their obviously wasn't enough science to fill the script so somebody said lets just make stuff up. BTW - if you can reproduce some of the raw data and show thats is sucky data it would probably help stimulate debate here |
ya know.. i've never seen conclusive data either way.
the CONCEPT of global warming makes sense to me. human ARE pumping the atmosphere full of pollution.. coal, smoke, hydrocarbons, acids, etc... BUIT, what the issue is to ME, is what EFFECT is that ACTUALLY having...
the answer that *I* have is: i have NO fucking clue... _________________ -=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
www.twitter.com/Moloth
www.MySpace.com/Moloth
www.last.fm/user/moloth
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Philosophos Do it

Joined: 01 Mar 2004 Posts: 9289 Local time: 7:00 PM Location: Where Scum Are
|
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
She blogs about it here. There, she brings up two points.
Her heat island affect point is interesting, but I don't know for sure how many of the thermometer's environments changed and in what ways.
Her analysis of new record highs being later than new record lows is questionable, as it uses less sensitive nonparametric analysis where it may not be needed. Why not just make your null hypothesis be that the average temperature will not deviate positively from zero over time?
It also makes me a little concerned that she immediately confuses climate change for weather change.
But, her suggestions at the end of the post are quite reasonable. Even people who don't believe in global warming would probably agree.
My view on global warming is ignorance. I simply haven't payed any attention to the issue, as I agree with TK that it's in my own personal interest to stop wasting so much to save myself some money, so that's what I make some effort to do. When ignorant about a given matter, a first approximation for holding a reasonable position would be to defer to the view of major scientific organizations that would be authorities on the matter. For instance, the American Meteorological Society states:
| Quote: | | Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond. |
Thus, without further analysis, that would pretty much be my default position. And I'm simply not interested enough in the topic to give it a whole lot of thought at this time. _________________ The whores and politicians will shout 'save us'...
...and I'll whisper 'no'.
Last edited by Philosophos on Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sal1981 Do you hear me now?

Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 2795 Local time: 11:00 PM Location: Behind the computer

|
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:29 pm Post subject: Re: Global Warming: The Rise of a New Religion |
|
|
Same OP text, but with just a couple of headlights. Not to be read out of context, if you know what I mean ...
| TKKenyon wrote: | Morning Edition on NPR recently produced a puff piece ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89619306 ) about Kristen Bynes, blogger of Ponder the Maunder, a blog dedicated to refuting the idea that global warming is a man-made phenomenon.
While the issue of a 16 yo kid becoming a leading global warming contrarian is devastating for the contrary view's validity as a scientific theory, and it seems that she indeed attended a short course at UGoog in Climate Science to arrive at her pre-ordained conclusions (which is the complete antithesis of how science should be conducted,) and that NPR is succumbing to natural selection by lowest common denominator, it seems that there is more to this story.
Personally, I’m not sold on the whole idea of global warming, man-made or not. I used to be. I was upset by the enormous amounts of CO2 that we humans were venting into the atmosphere, just like we exhaust raw sewage into our oceans, etc., etc., etc. And, you know, it seemed warmer, discounting that horrendous Iowa winter of 1995 when temps hit -40F and the Iowa River froze over. You can eliminate outliers in your data, as long as you can account for them, or at least make a nice statistical argument for ignoring them. It seemed that the consensus of the scientific community is that man-made global warming is a threat, and I generally go along with scientific consensus unless there’s a valid reason to doubt, and it had better be a good one. I don’t like the contrarian position.
I do, however, like data. Hard data. Preferably raw, pre-crunched data.
Here’s what changed my mind on global warming: I read that horrible anti-GW novel by Michael Crichton, which so sticks in my mind that I can’t recall the title, and I thought that his novel was so badly written that surely its conclusions can be tossed aside with great force. Crichton is both a horrid novelist and merely an MD.
(Yes, I am arrogant to snark so widely. I hold a fiction MFA from Iowa, where I received many prizes, and have published two well-received novels. During my PhD work in microbiology, I taught medical students in a Midwestern medical school. They’re great at memorizing things but, let’s face it, medical school does not reward original thought nor critical thinking. Their exams are multiple-guess. So, I’m snarky and arrogant. Crichton has loads more money than I have and a huge house on Kauai. He can take the shot.)
So, I set out on my own course of study at UGoog. I expected to quickly dismiss Crichton’s objections with data and confirm the majority opinion. It seems like an overwhelming opinion. I figured it would take an hour.
Here’s what I found: the global warming data is terrible. The methods that collected the data that produced the scary graph that we’ve all seen (where temperature spikes up in the 1970’s) are beyond shaky. It’s really bad science. I read the whole UN report, and the data that is cited in the prologue, which everyone reads, is a minor part of the whole report. Only surface temps, and only those in major urban areas, are going up. Atmospheric temperatures are not. This is to be expected by the “heat island” effect, where asphalt retains more heat than soil and re-radiates this heat at night.
Personally, I’m on the fence. The data behind GW, whether man-made or not, sucks. Here’s the problem: whenever you say that the data sucks, people jump on you like you insulted Jesus. They label you a “denialist” and, rather than debate the data, accuse you of wanting to rape the planet.
The global warming debate has moved from the arena of science, where one is free to debate data, methods, and conclusions, and into the area of religion, where one must adhere to dogma or else risk retribution.
That’s a huge problem.
When I published a short blog post about this ( http://science4non-majors.blogspot.com/2007/11/hoax-of-global-warming-john-coleman.html ), I got hate mail. Not refute mail. Not argue mail. Hate mail.
Even though my blog post encouraged recycling and conservation, people accused me of trying to destroy the planet.
The debate about global warming must return to being a debate, not a tirade, not a crusade, and not a sermon.
TK Kenyon
http://science4non-majors.blogspot.com/ |
So, what do you think of my ... uhm ... typographic editorial highlights? _________________ "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman
"Why not just make your null hypothesis be that..." - Philosophos |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gnosis Forum Leader


Joined: 27 Feb 2008 Posts: 1870 Local time: 6:00 PM Location: California

|
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The point I was also making was that the same political forces behind intelligent design support the "debunking" of global warming.
How could man cause any change in "God's creation", right? God will sort it all out, of course. Global warming won't matter when the rapture comes.
Please note the section regarding warming of the atmosphere and oceans below:
Last edited by gnosis on Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:35 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sal1981 Do you hear me now?

Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 2795 Local time: 11:00 PM Location: Behind the computer

|
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philosophos wrote: | | Why not just make your null hypothesis be that... |
Sig stuff!  _________________ "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman
"Why not just make your null hypothesis be that..." - Philosophos |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
romans120 Moderator


Joined: 14 Aug 2007 Posts: 1816 Local time: 6:00 PM Location: mid-west
|
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:35 pm Post subject: Re: Global Warming: The Rise of a New Religion |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | | Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: |
Nice analogy. AGW is very much like ID, as some people cannot imagine a complex system without intelligent control. |
Are you saying that the science behind global warming is just as credible as the philosophy behind intelligent design? I'm sorry Jason, but I was making the opposite analogy. Intelligent design is the willful denial of scientific fact just like global warming "debunking" is, to support a preconceived notion of how the world works.
The OP makes a reference to surface temperatures as opposed to atmospheric temperatures. What about greenhouse gases?
Is the OP unaware of the data surrounding the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the science behind the greenhouse effect? |
how much of that carbon dioxide is sourced directly from humans in relation to other sources. how beneficial is carbon dioxide is to the environment? _________________ The Resident Theist
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20
Check out my weblog at http://romans120.wordpress.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Knight_of_BAAWA Jedi Slackmaster

Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Posts: 9614 Local time: 6:00 PM Location: USA
|
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:36 pm Post subject: Re: Global Warming: The Rise of a New Religion |
|
|
| TKKenyon wrote: | | The debate about global warming must return to being a debate, not a tirade, not a crusade, and not a sermon. |
| gnosis wrote: | | Just like the "debate" about evolution and intelligent design, right? |
Yes, where the hardline anthropogenic global warmers are the IDers.
Remember that hockey stick graph? Remember how McIntyre and McKittrick showed the horrid math involved with that? Remember how McIntyre showed that 1934, and not 1998, was the warmest on record? _________________ aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Last edited by Knight_of_BAAWA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gnosis Forum Leader


Joined: 27 Feb 2008 Posts: 1870 Local time: 6:00 PM Location: California

|
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:37 pm Post subject: Re: Global Warming: The Rise of a New Religion |
|
|
| romans120 wrote: |
how much of that carbon dioxide is sourced directly from humans in relation to other sources. how beneficial is carbon dioxide is to the environment? |
Please see the webpage I linked above for this information, romans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|