Continued Response

Reme,

Good argument. This was well reasoned and more compelling. Let me see if I can respond where I thought necessary.

A) Peer Reviewed Journals:

I'm glad we're on the same page with peer-reviewed journals. I'll make note again that most of them aren't on the internet, which would mean that the study you referenced would only be sampling a minority of what's available (and the more technologically savvy minority). Also, I think it's worth pointing out that we don't have the key words used for this particular survey of articles, which leaves us with the question of whether or not those key words were biased.

However, let's say I concede to you that the survey was entirely fair and unbiased. Let's say I also ignore that there might actually be articles which present DATA disputing global warming, but no OPINION, which then would leave them in the category of “no position” even though they ought to be counted in the “against” category. Still, let's concede those points and move on.

Where does that leave us? With a tally of 928 to 0.

Let's put it up again all big and bold:

928 to 0.

Stunning, ain't it? Sure. Stunning.

But what's wrong?

You have taken this number to be firm support of your position. I mean, look, it's:

928 to 0.

Obviously, this kind of consensus can not be argued with. Correct?

I admire your dogged determination to hunt down these kind of facts, but you missed the subtle suggestion these numbers present.

This study tells us not that there is a debate, not that some people disagree, but that there is ABSOLUTELY NO OPPOSITION.

Tell me, on what subject have you ever found that there is no opposition whatsoever? Give me a subject where if we tallied the populace you would find absolute agreement with a grand whopping total of ZERO dissent.

Reme, there are scientists publishing papers right now who claim Einstein's Theory of Relativity is wrong. The single greatest theory in scientific history, proposed by the most brilliant mind of the 20th century, and if you did a tally of scientific papers today you might find (making up a number here) a vote of

928 to 6.

But there would be that six.

An absolute donut hole of opposition should not cause you to jump for joy. It should make you wrinkle your brow, at the very least. More likely, it ought to send a small shiver down your back.

I've said it before: this is not a debated issue. The real debate in scientific circles died out a long time ago. And when debate vanishes, when it shrinks to zero, it is most assuredly NOT because everybody agrees, but because the opposition is being suppressed.

And suppression is always wrong. As Voltaire famously said: “I don't agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it.”

928 to 0.

It ought to worry you.

B) Misrepresentation:

Yes, indeed, there will be examples of scientists misrepresenting data to further their own agendas. I think you might be further enlightened if you look up the history of Michael Mann, who published the infamous “hockey-stick” graph in a 1998 issue of Nature magazine. It was this graph, and Mann's work, adopted by the IPCC which caused a major rolling wave in the whole global warming argument. Mann's work, later discredited, has been rejected now by the IPCC, but only after they prominently used it and displayed it for six years.

The point, again, and as it will continue to be, is that there is bad science on both ends.

It also, however, is my not-so-subtle hint that one shouldn't trust the conclusions or the infallibility of the IPCC, no matter how many scientists they have in their ranks.

C) My Point Regarding Consensus:

You are correct in pointing out that consensus on the issues I mentioned have changed, and that yes they have changed because of scientific discoveries (although I would argue the greater measure of change came not from science but from social and political revolutions for certain examples).

The point I was making, though, was subtle. I will restate it. Consensus, as a basis for argument, is worthless and meaningless. It may be right. It may be wrong. In either case, it does not matter, because simply because large numbers of people believe something to be true does not make it so.

Consider that our current consensus could change, and we could revert to the belief that certain races are inferior to others. This could become a wide spread consensus. It would not make it true. And it would not change the facts. That is why we must use facts as the basis of argument, and not opinion.

D) Fear:

Now, here is where I'm going to take you to task, because I have grown intolerably weary of this particular facet of the global warming argument: the argument that we must ACT NOW OR ELSE.

This is absolutely the vilest basis for persuasion known to man, for it makes no appeal to reason or to logic, but rather appeals to one thing and one thing only: fear. It claims legitimacy not through good, solid thinking, but through a desperate appeal to the emotions, emotions which serve only to cloud rational thought.

It is the same appeal used by the doomsayers who claim the world is at an end and have been claiming so in every era since the crucifixion.

It was the same appeal that sent America into mindless and endless war, and has sent countless other countries into countless other conflicts.

It is the same base and dehumanizing appeal that causes ignorant white parents to grasp the hands of their children when a black man walks by.

It is, sadly and pathetically, the appeal that won over California voters on Prop 8 and thus denied good, decent Americans their civil right to marriage and equality.

If I look over the course of your arguments thus far, many of them have been faulty, weak and illogical, but all of them are arguments widely swallowed by the masses, and the people swallow them for one reason: fear.

What I hope for here is that you will make a compelling and convincing appeal that has nothing at all to do with fear and emotional hysteria. As I said before, if your conclusions are accurate and your argument sound, then it should be just as accurate and sound in the full light of day as it will be huddled in the dark corner shrouded in a robe of fear-mongering.

Off from that particular soap-box...

E) Media:

Your statement that you don't believe the mass media is pushing the global warming agenda says either that you don't pay attention to the mass media or...well, actually, that's about all it can mean. Check out the major news television shows and let me know when they run a story against global warming. Let me know when an anchor even hints that global warming isn't real.

I won't hold my breath.

F) Lobbying in Washington:

Lobbying. Yes, the oil industry lobbies intensively. And they put out huge sums of money.

You know who puts out more money lobbying than anyone else? The American Medical Association.

You know the most powerful lobbying group in Washington DC? The AARP.

I'm not denying the influence of money, but I think it might do Americans some good if they had a better understanding of the lobbying process. There's more to it than evil deals done behind closed doors, and the truth is the majority of that money is thrown around to advance positive aims...like benefits for tobacco farmers and better wages for oil workers.

Furthermore, making the accusation that the oil industry spends millions of dollars lobbying in Washington in an effort to deny global warming is a gross misunderstanding of the political structure. A lobbyist would not be employed doing this.

What would actually happen is the oil industry would put forward experts to testify in congressional hearings regarding issues of climate change, and these experts would lay out their case (supporting the oil industry, no doubt).

It is in congressional hearings where the oil industry's influence would be felt in regards to disproving or refuting the claims of global warming supporters. But in lobbying? Not likely. Lobbyists have much more specific and direct agendas which involve policy and law, not scientific debate.

G) Solar Radiation:

I'm not sure exactly where you took your data considering solar radiation, but since your initial statistic regarding solar energy and its fluctuation since 1750 is inaccurate, I would question the rest of it as well.

I would point you to the work of SK Solanki, who presented an article called “Solar Variability and Climate Change: is there a link?” is Astronomy & Astrophysics. His work clearly shows fluctuations and increases in solar irradiation during the time period we're discussing, and shows a corresponding correlation with increased temperatures on Earth.

Solanki does not conclude that they are a cause and effect system, but notes the correlation. He also notes that his data does not account for a sudden spike in temperature for which there is no spike in solar irradiation, a spike he believes is caused by greenhouse gases.

However, that spike does not occur until 1980, a statistic not correlating to the general global warming argument.

To say that various models can't account for change in temperature without including greenhouse gases is a rather misleading statement, since there HAS BEEN an increase in greenhouse gases. There's no debate there. So any logical model would include those gases as part of the overall effect.

We're not debating whether there's more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or not. We're debating their effect.

H) Pseudoscience:

As for pseudo-science. Pseudo meaning false. False science are those fields of study and theory which masquerade as legitimate science but underneath are anything but. Imagine science as a set of clothing. Anyone can put them on, but that doesn't mean you're a scientist underneath.

The dangers of pseudoscience are many, but they all stem from the fact that people trust and believe scientists. People give weight to even the slight opinions of scientists, because we imagine their opinions to be backed by science. The authority we give scientists is much like the authority people gave to the Church in the medieval era, for in our own culture science has toppled religion as the main pillar of truth.

For this very reason speaking in the name of science comes with a grave responsibility. Science speaks with authority, and it's authority comes from it's successes, which have been many. All those successes, however, rise up from the same foundation: logic, rationality, reasoning, unbiased and testable experiments. If you are going to speak in the name of science, then, you need to be working from that same foundation.

Pseudoscience, however, does not. It uses the pulpit of science to forward arguments and systems of belief that have no grounding in rationality or logic, testable hypotheses or reason.

A fine example is the Space Alien Abduction theory. There is no evidence to support it, no logic behind its argument, no testable hypothesis, and no rational reasoning to explain the basis of its debate. And yet there are thousands of pseudoscientists using the name of science to forward their ideas about Space Alien Abduction. They print books and newspapers, have their own television and radio shows, and their followers number in the millions.

And, in some cases, they have developed cults, as the Hailey's Comet cult did at the end of the millennium. They committed mass suicide, believing the alien gods had come round again to take their souls to heaven, or Mars, or whatever.

Pseudoscience poses a dangerous threat to our democracy, for reasons Sagan outlines clearly in his book. You should read it. After finishing this book my junior year in high school I said if there was one book I thought every high school student should have to read it would be DHW.

As to how pseudoscience relates to our discussion here, I will argue that the claims of global warming experts are pseudoscientific, based on faulty science and false logic masquerading as the real deal. What I have argued for from the start, and will continue to here, is for a better case, a clearer argument, and the use of real science to get a solid and accurate picture of what we're dealing with.

Because until we do, we will be making all of our decisions based upon a misguided and fundamentally inaccurate understanding of our world. This kind of decision making undermines our democratic system. In most cases it is merely costly, in some cases devastating, but in all cases dishonest.