In the midst of appropriately ridiculing Al Gore, Charles Krauthammer raises an interesting point:
Look, if Godzilla appeared on the Mall this afternoon, Al Gore would say it’s global warming…
[Laughter]
…because the spores in the South Atlantic Ocean, you know, were. Look, everything is, it’s a religion. In a religion, everything is explicable. In science, you can actually deny or falsify a proposition with evidence. You find me a single piece of evidence that Al Gore would ever admit would contradict global warming and I’ll be surprised.
OK, so how is the global warming religion falsifiable? What would it take?
1) 30 more years of satellite data. The raw surface data is both too intrinsically flawed and poorly documented to be considered “instrumental” as opposed to “proxy data.” The addition of adjustments makes individual instruments align better with the overlapping satellite data – while causing wider and poorly explained excursions in the historical data.
2) Complete conversion to nuclear power combined with the elimination of meat-eating and 1/2 child-per-person limits for 50 years.
The Mann et al. paper of 1998 tipped the climate modelling community into accepting CO2 as “causal” as opposed to “correlated”. It doesn’t matter to them that his flawed methodology yields a very similar hockey stick even when entirety of the raw data is fed in both upside-down and backwards – because they’ve already accepted the models based off of that fundamental building block as reality.
If this was a closed system in a laboratory, concrete numbers could be determined with just a few strong perturbations. In the wild, we’re really unlikely to be physically able to do any of these perturbations.
What would it take?
Global cooling, an ice age?
OK, so how is the global warming religion falsifiable? What would it take?
If the Sun continues in its funk for this solar cycle, which seems likely, and the next cycle is even smaller, we will have our answer.
The problem is, that if this indeed happens, then the discredit of science will last for a generation or more. This is the most dangerous thing that could happen.
“the discredit of science will last for a generation or more”
In fact, the story of the falsification of AGW, if that’s what actually happens, will be one of the great confirmations of the scientific method as she is spoke.
AGW does indeed constitute a religion which gained a very solid foothold among scientists in many disciplines, who desperately want it to be the truth. Falsification would clearly demonstrate the ability of science to overcome strong prejudice among its practitioners.
DJ Moore, the problem is that scientists will have been among the last to admit the obvious, and quite willingly engaged in coverups, falsification of data, conspiracies, outrageous attempts to silence critics, etc. What the public is learning is that they lie, they lie repeatedly, and they desperately try to turn their lies into power over what ordinary people can buy, spend, say, and think.
The only upside is that decades from now it might convince them that they’re subject to the same failings as any society, and that their pretence of objectivity can easily be hijacked by sincere belief that they’re saving humanity, as happened when they advanced eugenics.
“The problem is that scientists will have been among the last to admit the obvious”
Exactly the point. Science doesn’t necessarily work in the short term. There is no guarantee that workers get the right answer right away. The question is, does science, as a social process, get closer to the right answer over time, despite the prejudices of its practitioners.
Science isn’t a way of finding the truth. It’s a way to throw out the trash. If AGW turns out to be trash, and it gets thrown out, massive win.
Also, given that there is now a substantial faction who strongly believes AGW is a pile of crap, if they are convinced others, also a massive win.
Oops.
“if they are convinced otherwise“
In the defense of those who believe in AGW, most are ignorant of its religiosity, what is the excuse of all those who believe in religions knowingly?
If the AGW religion does get struck down, does that mean that all other religions will get struck down as well? After all, fair is fair. Or will the AGW religion be covered under religious freedom, is it not the right of all Americans to believe in AGW if they so choose? What would be so wrong with the president finishing a speech with the words, “And may AGW bless America!”
For a little fun someone could seek public recognition and non profit status for the AGW religion. It might even be the biggest religion in the US, and it could claim many high profile practitioners. It is not like there is no precedent (Scientology…).
Are people upset that base AGW morality is affecting public policy? Are people similarly upset that base Christian morality is affecting public policy to a far greater extent? If not why not?
Should not an attack on the AGW religion be seen as an attack on all religions and therefore should not other religions be standing up to protect their brother religion?
It seems to me that many formally religious people are persecuting AGW believers for believing in a, well, religion. Religious intolerance is alive and well in the US.
It seems to me that many formally religious people are persecuting AGW believers for believing in a, well, religion.
No, the problem is that the AGW believers are claiming that their religion is science, and demanding that the heretics (aka “deniars”) be sent to reeducation camps.
Exactly the point. Science doesn’t necessarily work in the short term. There is no guarantee that workers get the right answer right away. The question is, does science, as a social process, get closer to the right answer over time, despite the prejudices of its practitioners.
Religion is not what it was 2000 years ago either, it to is a process and it has evolved and thrown out a lot of trash over the centuries. With time most religions get closer to the right answer, just not necessarily the literally correct answer. However religions have power and evolve in ways that science does not, and they continue to evolve that power and their capacity to unite and focus large populations on a common survival goal.
If you want an objective measure of which is the superior process – science or religion, just look at the results. Which is winning the survival game? How many believers verse how many scientists in the world today?
You can keep AGW as a religion as far as I am concerned, I just don’t want it being the officially sanctioned state religion as it is now.
“It seems to me that many formally religious people are persecuting AGW believers for believing in a, well, religion.”
No, the problem is that the AGW believers are claiming that their religion is science, and demanding that the heretics (aka “deniars”) be sent to reeducation camps.
So this religion is claiming itself the one truth, and promoting morality modification/conformity? Sounds like a normal religion to me.
So this religion is claiming itself the one truth, and promoting morality modification/conformity? Sounds like a normal religion to me.
Let me repeat, since you seemed to miss it the first time. The crucial difference is that it refuses to admit that it is a religion. It instead cloaks itself in the false garb of science.
You can keep AGW as a religion as far as I am concerned, I just don’t want it being the officially sanctioned state religion as it is now.
Well, it is yet to show up in the pledge of allegiance. But as others have suggested on this forum previously, is it really worth quibbling over a little encroachment of a church upon the state?
And in defense of the AGW religion, there is probably more truth in it than most religions. It may not have been proven scientifically right, but nor has it been proven scientifically wrong. I might even go so far as to suggest that most on this forum would probably be of the opinion that some degree of AGW is likely occurring.
“So this religion is claiming itself the one truth, and promoting morality modification/conformity? Sounds like a normal religion to me.”
Let me repeat, since you seemed to miss it the first time. The crucial difference is that it refuses to admit that it is a religion. It instead cloaks itself in the false garb of science.
So because it refuses to admit itself as a religion it should be treated with religious intolerance?
And in defense of the AGW religion, there is probably more truth in it than most religions. It may not have been proven scientifically right, but nor has it been proven scientifically wrong.
If the biggest promoters of AGW knowingly ignored and falsified significant amounts of data in order to validate their theory, doesn’t that in and of itself prove their theory to be scientifically wrong?
Jiminator, the short window that was open to push that into the public consciousness has closed. Now when you bring up the fraud in the field you get the “few bad apples” treatment at best, and outright denial at worst.. and more and more it’s the at worst.
Ah, Pete, such willful ignorance. The point our host is making is that Religion is only given “tolerance” if it stays out of the public square. “Separation of Church and State”, don’t ya know. If AGW is a “religion”, it can’t be taught in public schools. That’s how the game is played at this point. No public funding, etc, etc. You might be able to pull “It’s a Religion!” off, but I don’t think your side would see it as a win….
If the biggest promoters of AGW knowingly ignored and falsified significant amounts of data in order to validate their theory, doesn’t that in and of itself prove their theory to be scientifically wrong?
Nope, it only infers that they could not prove it. For example, Europeans were unable to prove the existence of black swans, that did not mean that they did not exist. This is the same type of thinking that created the AGW religion in the first place – ignoring the unknowns. Absence of proof/disproof is not proof/disproof of absence.
Considering that humanity has taken a lot of stored fossil fuels and uranium and turned it onto heat on the Earth’s surface I am suspicious that AGW is true. There would otherwise have to be some humanity induced global cooling effect that more than offset this – maybe there is but I have not yet seen it. Hence even without the CO2 effect I am highly suspicious that AGW is actually happening.
Ah, Pete, such willful ignorance. The point our host is making is that Religion is only given “tolerance” if it stays out of the public square. “Separation of Church and State”, don’t ya know. If AGW is a “religion”, it can’t be taught in public schools. That’s how the game is played at this point. No public funding, etc, etc. You might be able to pull “It’s a Religion!” off, but I don’t think your side would see it as a win….
And which side would that be? (Hint, I am an atheist.)
Since when has religion stayed out of the public square? Are you suggesting that people do not vote based on their religious beliefs? Congress had its first openly gay representative in 1983, yet it did not get its first openly atheist representative until 2007. Are you suggesting that politicians do not get elected based on their religious beliefs? And that they are not influenced by those beliefs in their decision making?
Separation of church and state infers that the state is not allowed to pick religions. However if some voters are allowed to vote based on their say Christian beliefs then other voters are allowed to vote based on their AGW beliefs – and politicians will represent those beliefs. One would expect Christians particularly to be highly mindful of religious tolerance in such regards.
Something like 40% of people in the US are of the opinion that Global warming is happening and primarily anthropomorphic – it is not a small religion to be lightly dismissed.
Yes, we gathered that. More to the point, you’re exactly like montejo–for some reason, you just don’t want to seem to share the same planet with those who *do* happen to believe that there is something beyond this finite, mortal universe, or that it might have been actively created for a purpose.
I might even start to think that your personal religion is founded upon bigotry…
Pete says: “Nope, it only infers that they could not prove it. For example, Europeans were unable to prove the existence of black swans, that did not mean that they did not exist. This is the same type of thinking that created the AGW religion in the first place – ignoring the unknowns. Absence of proof/disproof is not proof/disproof of absence.”
This, unfortunately, seems to reflect the current approach that’s being used to push the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) ‘meme’: a subtle inversion of the Null Hypothesis in order to put the onus of proof on the “deniers”.
This “trick” has a scientific basis because most sceptics would agree that: a) the Earth is warming (and has been warming for several centuries); b) CO2 is a greenhouse gas by virtue of its absorption/radiative properties and so has the potential to cause warming. The idea of Anthropogenic Global warming (AGW) has, therefore, some scientific basis because it’s easy to verify the warming potential of CO2 in a laboratory. The problem is that this mechanism has a rather limited potential, due to saturation effects, so that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would only result in about 1C of global temperature rise (i.e. a sensitivity of 1C); a level that both ‘deniers’ and ‘believers’ agree is not really a serious problem.
The case for CAGW is, however, subtly different because it assumes that a multitude of feedbacks within the climate system result in an overall net-positive feedback effect that ‘amplifies’ the CO2 sensitivity to anywhere between 2C and 6C (or higher, depending on your reference), which are levels that I think most sceptics would agree represent a serious problem. However, the concern raised by sceptics is that there is, as yet, no real-world evidence for this overall net-positive feedback effect and, therefore, no scientific basis for CAGW.
Worse still (and by there own admission), the proponents of CAGW cannot make one unambiguous prediction that is verifiable/falsifiable via real-world data (i.e. CAGW is not testable via the Scientific Method), usually because either the signal is buried too deep within the noise or because the levels of uncertainty (i.e. error bars) are so high. This means that their ‘proof’ relies upon complex computer models, based upon an array of physical processes that, in some instances, are still poorly understood such as the effect of clouds; one of the most influential yet least understood feed-back mechanisms (N.B. all of this is clearly stated in the IPCC AR4/WG1 reports).
This situation means that CAGW proponents inevitably argue the “precautionary principle” or invoke the concept of “post-normal science” that defines ‘proof’ in terms of “consensus” rather than real-world evidence. It’s also the reason why sceptics consider CAGW as being more akin to religion than science.
Of course, all of this would not really matter if the debate was confined to just science journals or blogs. The real problem is that CCAGW is being used as the basis for some of the biggest global socio-economic initiatives ever proposed and, worse still, seems to be a cure that’s going to be much worse, in terms of human suffering, than the actual disease (which may not even exist)… bio-ethanol. anyone?
So, AGW, Scientology. Have L Ron Hubbard and Al Gore ever been seen in the same room at the same time?
Yes, we gathered that. More to the point, you’re exactly like montejo–for some reason, you just don’t want to seem to share the same planet with those who *do* happen to believe that there is something beyond this finite, mortal universe, or that it might have been actively created for a purpose.
I might even start to think that your personal religion is founded upon bigotry…
So Christians (for example) believe in whatever they believe, and yet they do not accept that AGW extremists should be allowed to believe in whatever it is that they believe, and I, who would wish to see both group’s beliefs treated somewhat consistently, am the bigot? Heads we win tails you lose…
Well, pete, thanks for responding. I do note that you missed the point of my post, that if AGW is to be considered a religion, then it cannot be taught in public schools. The Supreme Court has been quite clear, that would be an “Establishment of Religion”. There have been many lawsuits over this, hundreds of hours arguing whither or not you can have a bible club on school grounds, are Christmas trees allowed, etc. Christians are quite aware of how Religion is treated in the public square, as are the AGW people. That’s why the AGW people would probably kill you if you managed to get them put into the Religion category. Their “40%” wouldn’t last very long if they lost their captive audience.
Dave, well written.
Well, pete, thanks for responding. I do note that you missed the point of my post, that if AGW is to be considered a religion, then it cannot be taught in public schools.
Sorry, I was trying to not confuse things and stick to one point at a time.
AGW and climate change can still be taught as science. Somehow demarcating the science from the religion is tricky, but not exactly a new problem to the world of academia.
Establishing catastrophic AGW as a religion would I think perhaps be one interesting way of helping to establish that demarcation. The proof for what is and what is not a religion is far easier to establish than whether catastrophic AGW is true (is it testable…), so that catastrophic AGW is a religion should be reasonably easy to prove. Getting popular support for it would also seem relatively easy – Jedi I think did rather well and I and sure many would sign up for the catastrophic AGW religion even if only in jest.
Simply persecuting those who believe in catastrophic AGW is I would suggest perhaps not the best way of “fighting” this religion. How would persecution work for fighting most other religions? A little more cleverness is required.
Well summarized, Dave. You hit a lot of good points. I think there are a couple of other things at work here as well.
The current ‘thinking’ on any topic hasn’t changed quickly or cleanly in the past. In many cases its just that the old fuddies who hold on to the old ways of thinking die off. The ‘last lecture’ where a professor describes how he changed his mind about the major topic of his life would be quite important, but a pretty rare occurrence.
When old scientific theories changed, very few of them involved radical changes to (potentially) EVERYONE’S way of life on the planet. Yeah, the revelation that light had a finite speed was huge in scientific circles, with lots of (figurative) backstabbing and stealth recanting, but there wasn’t an effort by either camp to have everyone stop using light until it was worked out one way or another.
“AGW and climate change can still be taught as science. Somehow demarcating the science from the religion is tricky, but not exactly a new problem to the world of academia. ”
Yes, and Christianity can still be taught as history. Ha! No, if it’s a religion, it can’t be taught in High School. You are commingling High School and College. No, the basic problem is that the “problem” was “solved” by removing any hint of Christianity from the public square, and if AGW is treated like a religion, it will be shown the same respect you and yours showed Christianity, which is to say, none at all. People are petty that way.
Is AGW a Religion? Yes without a doubt. Because it is non-falsifiable. Many of the comments say that a global cooling would do the trick but it wouldn’t. I have a friend that is a believer. When I make fun of him about the cold weather he responds right out of that stupid movie “The Day After Tomorrow” Were New York freezes in seconds. Global warming has become Global Climate Change which can be either cooling or warming or both at the same time. More rain = global climate change, Less rain = GCC, More storms = GCC, Less storms= GCC. Weather isn’t climate during the winter but it is during the summer.
Popper smites the sloppy from beyond the grave.
Climate change is science – the geological record shows that the Earth’s climate has changed constantly throughout geologic time. We’ve had many periods of ice ages and many periods of hot temperatures and everything in between. This science is well established. The fact that most of these changes predate the existence of the human race is also scientifically established.
The claim that human beings are responsible for recent changes in the climate has not been scientifically established.
Larry, Climate change is not science, it has been observed, which is part of science but not the whole of it. First observe, then formula theory, then check validity of theory by making predictions. AGW made a theory and predictions, which have not panned out. Their refusal to admit that is why they are being called a religion here.
Hi, Mr. Mitchell. Sure, if AGW is a religious dogma then it ought not to be promoted with public funds.
Od, isn’t it, how many of the people saying that think creationism ought to be allowed equal time with real science in schools…
I think it’s actually very simple. Dump enough greenhouse gases into the air (noting that there is a positive feedback loop or two involved) and bad things are definitely going to happen. How much crap humanity has to pour into the atmosphere to get to that point is the issue.
A separate issue is that one of the greenhouse gas sources has an influence on the resources available to people who want to kill or enslave us – not particular which.
Larry, Climate change is not science, it has been observed, which is part of science but not the whole of it. First observe, then formula theory, then check validity of theory by making predictions.
Geology is a science. If you check the records from about 12,000 years ago, much of the Earth was in an ice age. It ended so by definition the climate changed. Note that there were very few humans alive back then compared to today and none of them were driving SUVs. The climate changed on its own. This has happened many times over the Earth’s geologic history with evidence of glaciation as far as the equator.
Thanks Rand. Krauthammer at his best.
Anyone still reading this thread who’s interested in the way climates scientists operate should go and read this post…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/07/rcs-duplicity-prods-jeff-id-out-of-retirement/
The bottom line (ignoring all the statistics) is that a new paper rebutting one claiming to have detected Antarctic warming was peer-reviewed by a lead author (Eric Steig) of the subject paper. Worse still, after the new paper had changed its analysis method because ‘Reviewer A’ (Eric Steig) requested it, Steig then wrote a rebuttal of this new paper on RealClimate that openly criticised the new paper for using the very method he suggested in his guise as ‘Reviewer A’!
This appears to be a rather clear (and shocking) example of the kind of sneaky tactics suggested in the Climategate e-mails and raises a very big question mark over the integrity of the peer-review process in the context of climate science.
Not odd at all Mr. Christian. It’s one of the reasons for “Separation of Church and State”. “Me Too” is a very strong and common human trait. Once you start teaching a religion (and Evolution is a religion to many people) in school, other people want in too. And if you claim a special case “It’s Science!”, then people will claim they’re teaching “Science” too.
Larry, Geology is not a Science, any more then “Climate Change”. Both are real, both have happened. What they are is Natural History, a term that has fallen out of favor for various silly reasons. They are not Science because they have ability to predict, other then in the vaguest way. “Mountains will happen”, “Rain will fall”. It is that desire to be a real Science that lead to the corruption of “Climate Change”, the falsification of Data, the suppression of “enemies”. Both are useful things to know and study, but Natural History, not Science.
Falsifiability of AGW
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2011/01/strange-decade.html#more
(and search for lucia in the comments)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037810.shtml
The referenced paper tries to figure out whether the recent ten years of stagnation of global temperatures is inconsistent with some of the standard models. It does not, unfortunately, finish the job by working out exactly how many years are necessary to refute the models. If someone has access to their data, it wouldn’t be hard to do.
I’m sick of these bastards doing politics and calling it science. Every one of them should lose their jobs and never again find employment that doesn’t include the phrase, “would you like fries with that?”