Scientific Scare Tactics- do you believe them anymore?

[vits3k]

Science Should not be a Popularity Contest

http://tinyurl.com/346vry

What is misunderstood here is the role of the skeptic in science.

Science is not a popularity contest. Science does not advance through closed door meetings of scientists voting on what is right and what is wrong.

It advances through open publication of results. These results, both theoretical and experimental, are distributed to the scientific community.

It is the obligation of the scientist to convince other scientists of the verity of their claims.

The role of the skeptic is essential in science. The skeptic questions the claims, points out errors and inconsistencies, publishes counterclaims, and insists on further experimental evidence.

[Nightmare]

A recent ruling on a timber industry lawsuit quashed the 1999 TLMP land protections, sticking important community use areas back into the timber base.

from http://www.seacc.org/ActionAlerts/Roadless2.htm

I know there were protections, but I think they were fairly recently overruled, which this group seems to claim. Maybe logging hasn't actually resumed though.

Edit:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...p;notFound=true

Apparantly it was only about 300,000 acres in which logging is now allowed (in the national forest), although Greenpeace claims much of it is becoming private. Believe as much of that as you will, I guess.

I need to stop diverting this thread though, sorry.

[Pobblebonk]

Tongass National Forest????? Have you used Google Earth lately? That whole region's going to shit. Maybe the Tongass area isn't as bad as neighboring BC' date=' but there are still clearcuts dotting most of the islands, and not just an 'okay' handful here and there either.[/quote']

No but I lived there for 20 years and flew over it several times a year. And while yes clear cutting is going on, that is not synonomous with deforestation. Deforestation occurs when the forest doesn't grow back as fast as it is cut.

There is a significant difference between primary (undisturbed) and secondary (regrowth) forest, and it isn't just the trees that are affected - logging clears understorey, reducing habitat complexity and resulting species diversity. Canopy cover is much reduced with similar effects. In fact the focus of my own research is on the effects of this sort of disturbance on particular animal communities; past studies have reported that major disturbance and regrowth from cleared areas is inferior to primary forest in terms of species richness across a large number of groups, but even moderate disturbance such as selective logging changes microclimates and alters habitat structure in ways that force changes in the particular animal communities that coexist in an area.

When Loggers harvest the forest they stay away from strems and lakes, and clear as many of the animals out as they can, then in 20 years you've got a beutiful young forest of spruce and alder. a couple decades later you've got a forest of cedar and hemlock, and another decade later you're ready for harvest again.

So, once the primary forest stage is reached, it's allowed no time to develop its natural wildlife community. Disturbed regions are necessary to promote diversity; a wide range of species have adapted to take advantages of clearings caused by tree falls and other natural disturbance. But these are also adapted for an environment in which disturbed habitats are a transient, small proportion of the whole.

That's how we look at it too, like a crop that we harvest. The only difference I see is the length it takes to grow it.

And like any crop, natural ecosystems are destroyed to accommodate it.

On another note, young trees and fauna take in MUCH more CO2 than old dead forests do.

Which is why countries like Malaysia get rewards from Kyoto for chopping down rainforest and replacing it with palm oil plantations. But turning Sarawak into a giant palm oil plantation is not tantamount to saying that deforestation isn't happening or that there isn't a serious environmental problem.

Phil

[Kallan]

I've never noticed much of a difference between newer forest and older forest, same birds, squirls rabitts, etc. Also Primary forest doesn't take more than a couple hundred years to develop. At the highest rate we've ever had the harvesting is on more than a 2000 year rotation.

[Pobblebonk]

I've never noticed much of a difference between newer forest and older forest' date=' same birds, squirls rabitts, etc. [/quote']

If you're working in a crop rotation system where the 'older areas' you visit are still once-disturbed secondary forest, then you're just going to get the species that are adapatable enough to survive in secondary forest. One source I read recently noted that forest disturbance had reduced the suitable habitat for salamanders in part of the US sufficiently that the maximum population size had fallen by quarter of a billion salamanders. Conversion to secondary forest throughout Singapore has resulted in the loss of practically all of the island's primary forest specialists, especially among birds. However much the forest regenerates, those animals aren't coming back and you won't see them even in older stands.

Worldwide, there are consistent trends in the replacement of specialist species, usually those restricted to a few areas and most vulnerable to extinction, with more widespread, opportunistic generalist species better-adapted to the new habitat conditions. For example, logging removes ground cover and dries out the soil, making it unsuitable for specialist terrestrial forest floor frogs. Studies in Madagascar, Brazil and Indonesia among other places have consistently shown that the result is the loss of these species from disturbed areas and their replacement by generalist tree frogs which are better-adapted to open, drier conditions. At a disturbed study site I used in Thailand, only one of the two dozen or so frog species found in the region is a habitat specialist - there simply isn't suitable primary forest left for any others. Open-country lizards that bask in sunlight benefit from cleared areas of forest, and are likely to outcompete leaf-litter dwellers in natural stands. Other groups are affected similarly.

Also Primary forest doesn't take more than a couple hundred years to develop.

If it's left alone. If soil erosion doesn't remove the nutrients the forest needs to regrow to pristine condition. In tropical forests, for instance, soils are usually nutrient-poor and a lot of the nutrients are cycled through the vegetation - removing that vegetation from the system in logging operations and exposing the soil layer to erosion both limit the system's ability to recover. If species dependent on primary forest haven't become extinct in the interim with no habitat in which to live. If you're a frog without a habitat to live in or anywhere suitable to breed, you aren't going to have a population in 200 years which can return to the area. If you're a large animal dependent on primary forest, it will only take a few generations for inbreeding to lead to extinction if you don't have enough primary forest around to sustain a reasonably-sized population. If you're a tree you might live through the disturbance in a small patch of remnant forest, but there may be no other individuals of your species in the surrounding area; unable to breed, you're effectively extinct even if you're still alive.

At the highest rate we've ever had the harvesting is on more than a 2000 year rotation.

So, if you're leaving these areas to regrow for so long, presumably once you've finished with one stand you move on to a completely new one to clear? In that way, in far less than 2,000 or even 200 years, you're just going to end up with regenerating forest in various stages and no primary habitat.

Phil

[Pobblebonk]

Science Should not be a Popularity Contest

http://tinyurl.com/346vry

What is misunderstood here is the role of the skeptic in science.

Science is not a popularity contest. Science does not advance through closed door meetings of scientists voting on what is right and what is wrong.

It advances through open publication of results. These results' date=' both theoretical and experimental, are distributed to the scientific community.

It is the obligation of the scientist to convince other scientists of the verity of their claims.[/quote']

And why is global warming the consensus among the majority of scientists? Precisely because this system has been followed and most scientists have now been convinced of the "verity of their claims" through examining the evidence.

The role of the skeptic is essential in science. The skeptic questions the claims, points out errors and inconsistencies, publishes counterclaims, and insists on further experimental evidence.

Indeed he does. Whereas the sceptics here only meet the first criterion - questioning the claims. No one has made an effort to point out "errors and inconsistencies" in results or conclusions. The sceptic isn't held to a different standard than any other scientist; he too must persuade other scientists of the verity of his counterclaims. It is beholden on him to show why evidence that his counterparts mostly find compelling is flawed, and moreover to present alternative explanations.

We have a strong correlation between CO2 output and trends in increasing temperature. We have a mechanism by which CO2 increases can increase temperature. We have an empirical connection between human emissions and increased atmospheric CO2. We have models based on the hypothesis that increased CO2 emissions are causing global climate change which have successfully predicted a number of observed changes in weather patterns and global temperature over the past decade or so. Now, the scientist requires an explanation for all of this evidence. If he's a sceptic, his explanation must (1) show flaws in some or all of these lines of evidence and/or (2) incorporate all lines of evidence he can't dispute into it.

The sceptic isn't put up on some pedestal on the basis that he's a sceptic - he's not likely to be right by virtue of going against consensus; Galileo may have been a sceptic who was validated in time, but Alan Fedducia is a sceptic who is pretty much definitively wrong (he refuses to believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs, a stance that he has tellingly never changed regardless of newer evidence to the contrary). The sceptic, like any other scientist, has a case to prove and must prove it in exactly the same way - just as he's sceptical of the consensus position, so scientists who accept the consensus are sceptics of his position.

Phil

[Pobblebonk]

No more energy for the arguing' date=' but I will put up some articles as I find them. :D

Global-warming skeptics cite being 'treated like a pariah'

By Eric Pfeiffer

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

February 12, 2007

Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.

"In general, if you do not agree with the consensus that we are headed toward disaster, you are treated like a pariah," said William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, which assesses scientific issues that shape public policy.

"It's ironic that a field based on challenging unproven theories attacks skeptics in a very unhealthy way."

It sounds as though the attacks are coming from politicians - I was unaware that politics was "a field based on challenging unproven theories".

Two climatologists in Democrat-leaning states, David Legates in Delaware and George Taylor in Oregon, have come under fire for expressing skepticism about the origins of climate change. Oregon Gov. Theodore R. Kulongoski is publicly seeking to strip Mr. Taylor, widely known as the state's climatologist, of his position because of his stance.

"There has been a broad, concerted effort to intimidate and silence them," said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global-warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "It's the typical politics of the hard left at work. I think these are real threats."

Just as the intimidation of and discrimination against government scientists whose findings support the consensus on global warming by the Republican administration is "typical politics of the hard left". It's the typical politics of dogmatic ideologues.

Mr. O'Keefe said his organization doesn't deny the existence of global warming but questions the methods used by individuals and groups advocating for new government restrictions to combat the phenomenon.

"We have never said that global warming isn't real," Mr. O'Keefe said. "No self-respecting think tank would accept money to support preconceived notions.

Tell that to the Discovery Institute...

Phil

[Pobblebonk]

The European Union is a signatory to the Kyoto protocols; this has had no noticeable effect on these countries' competitiveness or political relevance. Indeed as the European carbon trading market kicked in' date=' there were American states and companies frustrated that they wouldn't be able to get a piece of the action.[/quote']

Hmmm... according to this document, very few have actually implimented change:

I doubt anything I say will matter to you, so I'll just explain it quickly and then be done wasting my time.

Rather than setting a standard that countries must reach which would be good for the environment, the Kyoto treaty requires Annex I countries (Capitalists success stories) to meet a 5% lower rate of emmissions than they had in 1990. :shock: Which means that the countries who started first in turning around and reducing emmissions will be penalized the most

This makes no sense. If they started combatting emissions early, in 1990 or shortly afterwards, then presuming this trend continued into the present day, then they would already have low emissions and there will be less of a gap between their current output and 1990 levels than for countries which did not tackle emissions early. If the trend hasn't continued and their early gains were subsequently cancelled out by increased emissions, it makes perfect sense for them to be "penalised".

, especially if they are already extremely efficient and it is nearly impossible for them to get lower.

I'm struggling to think of a situation in which it would be "nearly impossible for them to get lower". No Western nation save Denmark has large amounts of its energy produced by renewable energy, none but France are heavily reliant on nuclear power. Increases in the use of both aid in reducing emissions. Nations gain credit for forest planting, and have plenty of space in which to plant trees. Since you're in the US, and as that country hasn't signed Kyoto I presume you're concerned about its ability to reduce emissions, then let's consider that case. The US government is only now considering increasing a statutory minimum miles per gallon rating for cars, one that has remained unchanged for the past 12 years. It is far from "nearly impossible" to increase American cars' fuel efficiency to European or Japanese levels, and this would reduce emissions. It certainly isn't impossible for the US to invest more in nuclear power or renewable energy, as states like California have shown in the latter by switching to renewables like solar not to combat climate change, but for purely logistical and economic reasons. Even if there were Western nations that would be penalised by Kyoto because "they are already extremely efficient and it is nearly impossible for them to get lower", the United States is not among them.

Indeed if the US government was led by reason rather than ideology, it would realise that switching away from oil makes perfect sense in the light of its desire to reduce its dependency on unfriendly Venezuela and the unstable Middle East, regardless of whether or not climate change is an issue.

While those who polluted much more in 1990 because they just don't care, can go on polluting at a much higher rate with no insentive to get lower or match the lower polluting countries.

See the emphasised section. Yes, they can go on as they are now. It's a poor compromise, but politically it was either that or have those countries opt out of Kyoto altogether - in which case they'd go on "polluting at a much higher rate with no incentive to get lower or match the lower polluting countries" anyway. Bear in mind that it was the US opt-out that forced the Kyoto planners to bend over backwards to accommodate China in the first place, since if the US had signed up the agreement could have been ratified without Chinese involvement, and the resulting agreement may have been stronger.

Top that off by realizing that there is a monetary insentive built in so that these successful low emmission producing countries must purchase (turn over cash) to countries who are poluters to buy points.

And what happens when you buy something? The person you're buying it from no longer has it because they've sold it to you. That is the incentive to reduce emissions - the developing countries aren't getting free money, they're being paid to reduce their own emissions in exchange for allowing other countries to produce more. And the country that buys the points gets two advantages: it can spend less on reducing emissions itself, making up the money lost buying from the other country, and because of that it remains competitive while the country selling the credits has to spend the money it's just been given on reducing its own emissions and, on your argument, its businesses' competitiveness as a result.

This is the situation with and without Kyoto for developing countries:

Without: We haven't signed any agreements to meet any targets. We'll keep polluting as usual, increase our emissions as we develop, and no one can stop us. Bwahahaha etc.

With: We've signed this agreement. We don't have any targets to meet and can keep polluting as usual, increase our emissions as we develop and so forth. But we have another option instead: We can ask other countries to pay us money to reduce our emissions, allowing them to continue their current rate of development while our own development isn't hindered unduly because we aren't footing the bill for cutting emissions.

Kyoto is the classic 'game model' of free market economics: you can play to win or you can cooperate to produce a win-win situation in which the overall outcome is better for everyone. The carbon credit system isn't mandatory; no signatories are forced to buy carbon credits from one another. But like carbon emissions trading in the EU and watched jealously by some US states, it opens up an entire new marketplace that countries can avail themselves of if they want to.

Another way of looking at it is like solar electricity. There are schemes doing the rounds to allow people using solar to sell electricity they don't use back to the grid - they aren't using the stuff anyway, so it makes more intuitive sense to gain money from their waste than to just throw it out. Carbon trading is exactly the same - countries are producing all this waste that just floats away into the atmosphere doing no good to anyone and for no economic gain. But if you put a price on it you can make money from it without expending any extra effort by selling permission to pollute to someone who wants it more, and like any commodity if you don't have enough you have sources from which you can buy more - it's an opt-out from spending money on cutting emissions, no more than that. Just an extra option at your disposal.

This is exactly what I was saying in another thread about short-sightedness - for some reason a particular type of person seems unable to realise that good environmental practice is actually good business practice, and it's pretty ironic that the only countries unwilling to sign up to a model of an efficient free market are the most capitalist-dominated ones.

Yes, to go back to a point you highlighted in another post, socialists are wrong. Capitalism is not inimical to environmentalism; quite the reverse, market forces are a potent tool that can be applied to environmental protection. The oldest protected areas in the world were all or mostly private reserves established by wealthy landowners. At least in theory, capitalism strives for efficiency, and efficiency by definition means less waste and so less pollution. But the socialist manifesto you presented does make one salient point: short-sighted capitalism is necessarily destructive. The problem, long recognised by economists, is that, left to their own devices without rules or guiding principles, market forces don't act rationally, to maximise overall profits or efficiency, but are much more driven to make whatever money they can now.

Phil

[Pobblebonk]

One of the longest-standing questions in climate change science is whether clouds amplify global warming or mitigate it.

Ah! We're getting somewhere (maybe) you at least admit that it's a longstanding question...

Hopefully the new experiments will shed some light on the subject. (pun intended)

One always needs to be careful to ensure they understand what a given question is asking, and what the uncertainty surrounding it implies. For instance, a common trap creationists fall into is in claiming that some minor uncertainty about the ancestry of a particular group of organisms implies that the entire evolutionary framework is questionable, which of course is complete bunk. It may have been unclear until fairly recently whether birds evolved from dinosaurs or another group of reptiles, but it was always clear that they had evolved from something.

This is another example of the same thing. There are questions about the magnitude of global warming, whether it's more likely to be a couple of degrees or six, say. There are questions about how much of present warming is mitigated by smog, and about whether clouds will have a net feedback effect that increases the rate of global warming or an albedo effect that mitigates it. There are questions about how ocean circulation currents may change and about the distribution and intensity of storm systems. However, what can no longer reasonably be questioned is how the warming is being generated in the first place - whether the warming is 1 degree or 10, whether the Gulf Stream slows or not, whether clouds increase or mitigate the effect, whether or not hurricanes become more frequent, are all questions about the magnitude and precise impacts of climate change, not about its cause. Uncertainty over the effects of clouds in climate change has no bearing at all on certainty about the cause of climate change.

Phil

[alucard]

There are some unstoppable things I do like... :twisted:

[Orbit]

Some more historical climate change info to dismiss:

Seriously, we need to stop all the polluting, but rather than delluding ourselves that it'll make a difference and we can force the Earth not to go through another shift in climate, we need to figure out how to adapt and survive.

****************

And read this gem of a scare tactic... apparently, global warming is going to cause a mini ice age and we humans are the only hope to keep the balmy weather of Souther Europe. :?

The ocean current that gives western Europe its relatively balmy climate is stuttering, raising fears that it might fail entirely and plunge the continent into a mini ice age.

The dramatic finding comes from a study of ocean circulation in the North Atlantic, which found a 30% reduction in the warm currents that carry water north from the Gulf Stream.

The slow-down, which has long been predicted as a possible consequence of global warming, will give renewed urgency to intergovernmental talks in Montreal, Canada, this week on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

It sort of reminds me of beach errotion where cities spend millions of tax dollars to move sand from a beach that is growing to one that is shrinking rather than providing insentives for the residence and businesses who face waves breaking into their livingrooms to move to safer locations.

Sure, humans can contribute to nature's effect on the environment, but we can't stop mother nature from doing what it is she does... we just don't have the technology to matter that much.

Things change, and just because we have the technology to measure it now (and freak out about it) doesn't mean we can CHANGE or STOP it.

The last shutdown, which prompted a temperature drop of 5°C to 10°C in western Europe, was probably at the end of the last ice age, 12,000 years ago. There may also have been a slowing of Atlantic circulation during the Little Ice Age, which lasted sporadically from 1300 to about 1850 and created temperatures low enough to freeze the River Thames in London.

It happened before... and we weren't at fault then... but now suddenly people think it shouldn't happen again and if it does ABSOLUTELY HUMANS DID IT!!

:roll:

[Nightmare]

How does that graph about ice ages relate to whether there is increasing temperature presently caused by industrial society? It looks to me like it just shows ice ages.

[Pobblebonk]

Some more historical climate change info to dismiss:

And read this gem of a scare tactic... apparently' date=' global warming is going to cause a mini ice age and we humans are the only hope to keep the balmy weather of Souther Europe. :?

The ocean current that gives western Europe its relatively balmy climate is stuttering, raising fears that it might fail entirely and plunge the continent into a mini ice age.

The dramatic finding comes from a study of ocean circulation in the North Atlantic, which found a 30% reduction in the warm currents that carry water north from the Gulf Stream.

The slow-down, which has long been predicted as a possible consequence of global warming, will give renewed urgency to intergovernmental talks in Montreal, Canada, this week on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

This was the idea behind the film The Day After Tomorrow, although for narrative purposes the shutdown took place in a few days rather than over several decades. There's no "scare tactic" in the above, it's just a report of a possible consequence of an observed effect. A complete shutdown of the Gulf Stream is regarded as unlikely, but it's not clear how probable it is with little data on how and when it's happened before. The mechanism behind the slowdown is indeed a consequence of global warming, and as the article points out was predicted some years before it was measured. Increased inputs of freshwater into the Gulf Stream system disrupt its natural circulation, and that freshwater is being provided by melting glaciers in northern Europe. Lower temperature rises obviously imply lower rates of melting, and so action to reduce the impact of global warming is a practical response.

Sure, humans can contribute to nature's effect on the environment, but we can't stop mother nature from doing what it is she does... we just don't have the technology to matter that much.

That simply isn't true; climate systems are highly complex, and the more complex a system the more prone it is to being disrupted by even minor disturbances. The natural concentration of atmospheric CO2 is almost vanishingly small, but keeps the Earth several degrees warmer than it would naturally be without it. Our level of technology has nothing to do with it (save that more advanced technologies such as nuclear and solar are typically less environmentally destructive than cruder ones, due to increased efficiency) - if you destroy a forest it's gone whether you chopped it down with axes or chainsaws. Setting fire to a bit of coal is about as low-tech as you can get, but with enough of it polluting the atmosphere it has a severe cumulative effect.

The last shutdown, which prompted a temperature drop of 5°C to 10°C in western Europe, was probably at the end of the last ice age, 12,000 years ago. There may also have been a slowing of Atlantic circulation during the Little Ice Age, which lasted sporadically from 1300 to about 1850 and created temperatures low enough to freeze the River Thames in London.

It happened before... and we weren't at fault then... but now suddenly people think it shouldn't happen again and if it does ABSOLUTELY HUMANS DID IT!!

Are you reading the responses that have already been posted several times? We aren't talking about some coincidence in timing, we're talking about establishing causal links. You cannot say "X has happened before naturally, therefore now X is happening again it must be natural". We know previous shutdowns and climate changes were natural because we understand the causes that led to them and the mechanisms by which they happened, and those happen to be natural. We know the current shutdown and climate change is almost certainly unnatural because we understand the causes that led to them and the mechanisms by which they are happening, and those happen to be unnatural.

Phil

[Orbit]

How does that graph about ice ages relate to whether there is increasing temperature presently caused by industrial society? It looks to me like it just shows ice ages.

It has to do with the idea that global warming is likely to happen because we are in an ice age right now. So people getting shocked and disturbed that we've done something to destroy the planet are ignoring the past history of climate changes.

Pobble - You and I talk in circles when we argue about stuff like this si I'm not arguing with you anymore - I'm not even reading your posts. Just thought I'd let you know... I'm sure some others here like your rationalizations, so by all means go ahead. I just thought I'd be upfront about it.

[Pobblebonk]

How does that graph about ice ages relate to whether there is increasing temperature presently caused by industrial society? It looks to me like it just shows ice ages.

It has to do with the idea that global warming is likely to happen because we are in an ice age right now.

We are in an interglacial - a warm spell within an ice age cycle. This began about 10' date='000 years ago.

So people getting shocked and disturbed that we've done something to destroy the planet are ignoring the past history of climate changes.

On the contrary, they're "shocked and disturbed" because they're aware of the past history of climate changes and know that the current one doesn't fit the mould. Warming from our entering the interglacial ended centuries, even millennia, ago, and was never as swift as the current temperature increase. The temperature in the last interglacial was not as great as it is now.

Pobble - You and I talk in circles when we argue about stuff like this si I'm not arguing with you anymore - I'm not even reading your posts.

Doesn't going in circles imply at least a degree of movement? I'd say we're still at square one because you never actually respond to points that have been raised to counter them - you just fix on a position and roll out things that you believe support it, oblivious to alternative evidence or flaws that others point out in the evidence you select. Which is entirely your prerogative and after all you aren't a scientist, but I'm unclear on why you enter into debates without a somewhat more open mind.

As for this particular case, I'm not even clear on why this is an issue for you at all - you say you regard it as a political issue, and it's clear which political ideology you affiliate yourself with, but you're hardly going to find a hardline Republican these days who'll deny a link between human activity and global warming - even George Bush now acknowledges it, he just refuses to do anything about it (the same is true for the Australian premier John Howard, who at least has been upfront about his priorities - he's on record as saying that he regards securing jobs in industry as a higher priority than environmental protection). But why do you even feel you need to have a stance on a subject you don't know enough about? Just because you belong to a particular political persuasion you don't have to adopt the party line on every and all subjects, or indeed have any opinion on every one. How does it affect your life whether or not you believe humans cause global warming? Why even have an opinion on it?

Maybe this sounds elitist, but at the end of the day the only people who need to have an opinion on scientific issues are the scientists involved and policymakers who make decisions. As far as I'm concerned, no one else needs to have an opinion on the subject, and those who do have an opinion on any subject ought to make sure that they're well-informed. People can still come to different conclusions, looking at the same evidence and concluding that it supports a different point of view, but I have little time for people who'll use ignorance and selective misinterpretations of the evidence to support a preconceived notion, especially when they won't permit exposure to different evidence and reevaluations of their own to change that opinion.

Ideology is, to my mind, the single most poisonous creation of the human mind. I honestly can't see any situation in which it helps advance anything, aids understanding or promotes good governance. I regard any politician who subscribes to an ideology as failing in their duty as an administrator, which is to ensure that the best policies are followed for the benefit of the people, a goal which necessarily entails critically examining the options and rationally determining which one is best, regardless of whether or not it conflicts with personal preferences. As a New Scientist editorial recently pointed out, who benefits from the US government's crackdown on scientists advocating global warming? Not the government, since it's inimical to its purpose to administrate effectively to manipulate or ignore evidence that would enable it to do so. Not the people it's governing, because it represents a failure by the government to do its job. And you can make the same case for any politically-charged issue (look at left-wing governments with ideological opposition to using nuclear power to mitigate global warming, for example).

Phil

[Orbit]

I'd say we're still at square one because you never actually respond to points that have been raised to counter them - you just fix on a position and roll out things that you believe support it...

I've tried in other arguments to respond to you and I find your dismissiveness of arguments and evidence that make sense to me and the verbose mechanical rendition of arguments that make no sense to me to be altogether impossible to wade through.

This is why I tend to respond to one point and see where it goes. Usually I get a your wrong with a 100+ word reason, which I can try to pick apart in a way that makes sense to me, only to expect another 100+ words for every point against any of my points.

Perhaps if you could be more concise it would be easier and less time consuming to disagree with you.

:lol:

[Nightmare]

Being concise just leads to confusion.

But as a fairly total aside, apparantly those X-Nibiru cultists weren't too far off after all. If you're a total geology nerd like me, this might be interesting

http://web.archive.org/web/20060211031847/...pw/iitpwpr.html

[Pobblebonk]

I'd say we're still at square one because you never actually respond to points that have been raised to counter them - you just fix on a position and roll out things that you believe support it...

I've tried in other arguments to respond to you and I find your dismissiveness of arguments and evidence that make sense to me

It's not 'dismissive' to present a refutation. You want me to be concise - do you want me to just say "you're wrong" and move on? I insist on pointing out the reasons those arguments don't work. The issues we're wrangling with here are' date=' ultimately, scientific ("what causes global warming"), not matters of policy (i.e. "what to do about global warming"), and as much as politicians may like science can't easily be boiled down to soundbites, without leaving gaps in the explanations that raise the very questions you've been asking about. Filling in those gaps takes sometimes verbose and occasionally complex explanations.

99 words, by my count. Happy now? :)

and the verbose mechanical rendition of arguments that make no sense to me to be altogether impossible to wade through.

You're welcome to ask for clarification of points you don't understand, but asking the question and then ignoring the answer rather defeats the point of asking in the first place. Okay, most people here aren't scientists, and most of those who are don't have a background in environmental science. I do realise that when commenting on the topic I'm doing so from a different perspective from the majority (though I hasten to add that it's not my field either and I'm not an expert, but I do keep up to date with the general developments), and maybe assuming some knowledge other people don't have. It's perfectly legitimate to raise questions about an issue that you don't understand; what I don't regard as legitimate is reaching a conclusion about an issue that you don't understand - if the counter-arguments 'don't make sense' to you, how are you in a position to make a value judgment about whether or not they're correct?

That's the bare minimum I ask: if you have a genuine interest in a subject and want to understand the issues to reach an informed conclusion, take the time to understand and weigh the evidence involved. If you don't have that depth of interest or knowledge, just withhold judgment on that subject. You don't get kicked out of the Christian Club for not having a stance on global warming; it's much more respectable in my eyes to simply say you don't have the background knowledge to make a call either way than to toe a party line, and even that's more respectable than claiming not to have formed an opinion either way when you transparently bat for one side or the other.

I quite like a TV ad for one of the news talk programmes over here, in which the host says that she doesn't believe one's opinions should be static, and that she's constantly challenging and reevaluating hers as she's exposed to different points of view. Why does this approach not seem intuitive for most people?

Phil

[Orbit]

You're welcome to ask for clarification of points you don't understand, but asking the question and then ignoring the answer rather defeats the point of asking in the first place.

Again, you fail to get my point....

You think it makes sense that oil companies drive all the anti-"we did it" research, yet you dismiss any possibility that there are socialist values behind the 'we did it' crowd.

Where as I think both sides are funded by people with their own interests and you have to look at all the data not just that which proves your point.

I have been posting the other side here to prove the point of the article I posted by Timothy Ball... that REAL scientists with REAL data are being DISMISSED simply because they are not on the 'popular' side of the argument. Made popular by people who ALSO have an agenda.

All I see you doing is defending reasons for their dismissal with complicated long posts of rationalization which only half make sense to me. And I could ask you to clarify what you mean....

But Pobble, here's the thing....

By not giving one iota of possibility to the idea that those who promote the idea YOU adore are biased as well, I simply don't believe you are fair minded in your approach.

You say:

I quite like a TV ad for one of the news talk programmes over here, in which the host says that she doesn't believe one's opinions should be static, and that she's constantly challenging and reevaluating hers as she's exposed to different points of view. Why does this approach not seem intuitive for most people?

But do you practice this yourself?? Because it seems to me that it's less like you want to figure out the truth and more like you want to figure out a way to be right.

In short: A mental block combined with an incredibly intelligent mind - so you will always be able to figure out one more reason to argue against any evidence given to counter you... necessarily getting more and more verbose with complicated mind games of multi-point rationalizations required to make your theories work.

And I don't have time for that.

[Pobblebonk]

You're welcome to ask for clarification of points you don't understand' date=' but asking the question and then ignoring the answer rather defeats the point of asking in the first place. [/quote']

Again, you fail to get my point....

You think it makes sense that oil companies drive all the anti-"we did it" research, yet you dismiss any possibility that there are socialist values behind the 'we did it' crowd.

I don't dismiss it, I demand reasoning which doesn't amount to speculation about political stances advocates of a particular issue may or may not hold.

In this case, oil companies want to make money from selling oil - fair assumption, yes? Said oil companies might reasonably regard claims that global warming results from using oil and attempts to cut back on emissions from oil as a threat to their profits - again not unreasonable, agreed? Now, this doesn't require any assumptions about the politics of the oil magnates or about their opinions, it's just based on the straightforward observation that oil companies want to make money, not because they're capitalist pig-dogs but just because that's what businesses exist to do.

Now what of people advocating the idea that humans cause global warming? They want to do such things as curb emissions because they believe that this can mitigate global warming. This is the most we can conclude on the face of it. They could be socialists, capitalists, Democrats, Republicans or paid-up Nazis and any mixture thereof for all anyone knows. And yes, there are groups like Socialist Alliances who see a bandwagon to jump on as a chance to further their own agenda, but that doesn't imply anything about anyone else who regards global warming as manmade. The point is you simply can't make an empirical connection between a concern that humans cause global warming and any benefit, tangible or ideological, that necessarily motivates that.

Where as I think both sides are funded by people with their own interests

The difference being, that if a study is funded by an oil company you can point to that and recognise a potential conflict of interest simply in that. If they're funded by a research council, government agency or whatever, you simply have no grounds for drawing that conclusion - you're going beyond what the evidence has to say and making assumptions. Yes, I'd be sceptical of studies funded by Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth too, but I've yet to see any published, peer-reviewed study of global warming that was funded by these organisations.

All I see you doing is defending reasons for their dismissal with complicated long posts of rationalization which only half make sense to me. And I could ask you to clarify what you mean....

Published scientific data on global warming is taken as seriously whichever position it supports - one of the articles I cited made a point of considering a study which suggested solar radiation could cause the current warming. It concluded that the data was too limited to justify that conclusion, being based on only two observations, and that evidence to the contrary made it highly unlikely that that was correct. There simply isn't as much dissent or as much data published that suggests global warming isn't man-made as critics like to suggest. In a database search of 'global warming + emissions" in major scientific journals, I found a single paper in the entirety of the last two years that attributed global warming to natural causes (I didn't look to see who funded it), and it wasn't widely-cited.

But Pobble, here's the thing....

By not giving one iota of possibility to the idea that those who promote the idea YOU adore are biased as well, I simply don't believe you are fair minded in your approach.

But Orbit, here's the thing...

My case is based solely on evaluating the research evidence. The biases or otherwise of people promoting either side aren't relevant to whether human-caused global warming is a real phenomenon. I don't deny that there are people promoting this who have their own biases, like the Socialist Alliance you brought up and Democratic politicians in the US. It just so happens that by a happy coincidence they're backing what is, by the scientific evidence, the right horse. What this is not is an invention of those interest groups designed to smash "capitalists" over the head. What I do deny is your stance that because someone takes the stance that humans cause global warming, they must necessarily be biased, without any evidence to that effect.

With oil companies, it's reasonable to believe a bias exists because you can point to said bias without inventing or assuming anything. That doesn't mean that all research suggesting global warming is biased, or even that all research supported by oil companies that reaches this conclusion is biased, it just means that where research is funded by oil companies and reaches their favoured conclusion, one has to be cautious about a potential conflict of interest.

Now, if Greenpeace or the Socialist Alliance funded a study that came out in support of their favoured conclusion, exactly the same would apply. But it simply doesn't do to dismiss any and all studies on global warming, whoever funds them, as biased because they can be used to support one or other agenda - and it especially doesn't do to do so preferentially for studies that don't match the position you support.

You say:

I quite like a TV ad for one of the news talk programmes over here, in which the host says that she doesn't believe one's opinions should be static, and that she's constantly challenging and reevaluating hers as she's exposed to different points of view. Why does this approach not seem intuitive for most people?

But do you practice this yourself?? Because it seems to me that it's less like you want to figure out the truth and more like you want to figure out a way to be right.

I figured out "a way to be right" a long time ago, and it applies to this and any other argument: make sure I know what I'm talking about before I get involved. That means I go through all the arguments and counterarguments I've encountered or have thought of in advance, and reach the conclusion most consistent with the evidence, before I'll even be willing to offer an opinion on a subject. And when I'm ready to offer that opinion I do so with confidence in my reasoning and ready to defend it against counterarguments.

In short: A mental block combined with an incredibly intelligent mind - so you will always be able to figure out one more reason to argue against any evidence given to counter you...

Remember what I said in one thread about treating debate like a game of chess - you try to think ahead of your opponent, anticipate their next move and the ones several steps down the line, and have a response ready to them. If I've reached an opinion I believe to be right I've met the counterarguments and found them lacking. I don't, as you seem to be implying here, settle on a point of view and make up objections to alternatives as I go along.

Yes, I am always ready to consider new arguments I haven't considered and to reevaluate my opinions in light of them. But I don't often find I need to reevaluate them, and here's why:

I'm a good chess player (at least in the metaphorical sense I'm using - I'm only passable as an actual chess player). It's not often that people make a move I haven't anticipated or encountered in the past in similar situations; I am, simply, hard to beat at this. I have have already incorporated my assessment of those arguments into my belief system. Take global warming - as I've said several times, I was a global warming sceptic myself not so long ago, initially of whether it was even happening and later of whether humans were responsible. I found that I had to reevaluate those beliefs, and having been in your position myself and having come to reject it I am familiar with most of the points raised against my current stance and understand why they aren't convincing.

Now here's a good line for a sig if anyone needs one:

I'm not opinionated because I'm narrow-minded. I'm opinionated because I'm always right.

Okay, usually right. Well, okay, probably usually right. No, no, this one's better: People don't usually prove me wrong. Which may just be because people aren't good at meeting the standards of proof I demand rather than because I'm necessarily in the right. Most people don't evaluate their opinions as rigorously as I do mine and can't support them as comprehensively. I'm just better at playing the game - and I've said before, I've been trained as a philosopher, a lawyer and a scientist. If anyone can be a professional intellectual chess player, I can. But just as in chess, there's no 'right' or 'wrong' - it all comes down to who plays the game better. And in that I have an unfair advantage when I'm the only one who realises that's the game being played here.

Phil

[Orbit]

**EDIT**

Forget it... it's not worth

[Pobblebonk]

Pobble' date=' It's not that I don't like you - I actually believe you are sincere and intelligent... and probably a very sweet person at heart. But here yet again another interaction with you is like[img']http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v735/epitome_hawke/baldy.gif[/img]

Hehe, and here I was planning to come back and edit the overlong post before you got to it. :)

You aren't looking at me as a person, but as an arguement to win.

Not an argument to win, an opponent playing a game - as I've said elsewhere I'm not so hot on the idea of arguing for the sake of banging home a point with life-or-death conviction that you're right. It's just an intellectual exercise.

I'm sorry if you feel that comes across as objectifying you, but I'm not clear on what you mean by "not looking at you as a person". I just don't feel that in this context it's helpful to infuse your arguments with aspects of your personality, any more than it would be to anthropomorphise a chess piece (and let's be clear here - it's the argument I regard as the 'chess piece', not you).

Yes, people have their personal biases, belief systems, their own reasons for preferring one option over another. And I know that when issues are controversial or political there is often an emotional investment. There often is with me (though not, actually, in this case) - look at the Aspie thread a while back, for example.

But what I'm trying to say is, that in the context of having a debate, I feel that all that should be left at home, that what should be at stake are simply the issues at hand. That avoids unhelpful bias, but beyond that it ought to allow us to play the game without feeling the other side is making personal attacks, and no one's feelings get hurt.

Look, that's how I look at this. Okay, you and a lot of other people don't. I've been told recently, here and elsewhere, that I come across as confrontational, and I think this is the root of it. It's not just confidence in making my case; it's this feeling that I ought to be able to make my case forcefully without hard feelings on the other side, and that if someone gets hurt it's because they approach things from the wrong angle, take them too seriously.

Okay, I recently had a fairly forceful wake-up call on something that relates partially to this. A lot of people, I'm coming to realise, can't perform my trick of divorcing their reasoning from their emotions or preconceptions, of depersonalising themselves for the sake of an argument. Whatever I say, my attacks on their arguments make them feel I'm devaluing them as people. I don't really see a compromise position - that's just not the way I see the world and I can't really understand their perspective any more than they do mine.

One of my friends has this remarkable tendency to agree with anything I say when it looks as though an argument may be looming; I've just discovered that that's because he doesn't want to get involved in arguing with someone he sees as confrontational rather than because we really think so alike. And it's frustrating for me because I enjoy debate, but I don't want to intimidate people that way or make them feel I'm browbeating them into submission when all I feel I'm doing is impartially presenting a case.

Can you imagine how frustrating is? I don't know if telling you this is cruel to you, or if it might do any good... but if you treat people in your real life like this, I can't imagine people will stay around long. :(

.

Hitting a bit too close to home just at this moment, but that's okay. Again, to me these are separate things - how I relate to people as people and how I interact with them when I'm in a debate situation. Just as (and I'm sure you're getting weary of this comparison), when I'm playing chess I pay attention to my opponents' moves and strategies and their ability as chess players, and not to everything else I know about them.

Sorry this one is a bit rambly - this is something I'm busy working out as I go along. I think it is helpful for me to know things like this, I'm just not sure what I can do about it beyond simply giving up arguing.

Phil

[Orbit]

*heh* so you got that post before I changed my mind. I wrestled with that before I hit send and then went back and deleted it after thinking MY style of blunt honestly isn't always welcome/useful to the people I interact with... I'm glad you didn't take me wrong.

I don't know that you have to give up arguing... some people are bound to have the time and like your style and as I said above, I never meant you to quit responding to what I posted, I think many people might be happily reading your point by point decimation of the evidence produced by scientists questioning the 'we did it' theory.... I just wanted to make it clear why I wasn't responding, rather than just ignore you and make you wonder. :)

As for the head banging I did, *L* maybe, if in the future, if someone starts getting stressed or frustrated with you (something you might have to teach yourself to recognize because people don't always have these great little icons to help express themselves), you can consciously decide what you want out of the interaction. To be 'educational' and continue to approach it as trying to win a chess game, or to connect on a 'we disagree but that's okay I like you anyway' level.

Each situation will be different and there is no 'right' choice because it's subjective and relationships are fluid.

Long and short of it, I'm not trying to tell you "CHANGE POBBLE!" I'm just giving some feedback on our interaction from my perspective. Not that I'm right... it is subjective afterall...

PS- I'd LOVE to see you and Damien Day go at it over something

Pss - one thing I've found helpful to keep the interesting topics in my discussions with people who aren't into debate, is to look at the interaction more as a way to figure out what they think and why. Ask them questions about their view rather than point out where they're wrong. Some people will return asking what you think, and just state as concisely as possible and without intent to convince anyone. MOST people aren't interested in what others think and why... Most people prefer to drop things when they realize they disagree... so you just LET THEM. *L*

[Orbit]

Diesel clothing brand has just come out with a new marketing campaign to promote their clothes as being climate change ready:

Here are a few photos worth a chuckle anyway.

[Loki]

ok it was hard to see the global warming concept while its in the middle of wintertime where i'm living and the weather being so damn cold... with snow and snow and i dont really take the media seriously

[OzWulfer]

There is one thing that is freaky is the climate stabilisation we’ve had since the 1500’s, which have allowed for our economic growth and modern society. Despite the small influence we have over the atmosphere, more hidden and vast forces we don’t see, like deep ocean volcanos and fluctuating solar sun have a much bigger part in climate change. Wether we like it or not, the mile deep ice sheets over London could return. And there won’t be a whole heap we can do about it.

Bring it on, I say. The earth is dynamic…we wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t

[Orbit]

:lol:

UFO science key to halting climate change: former Canadian defense minister

Wed Feb 28, 2:45 PM ET

OTTAWA (AFP) - A former Canadian defense minister is demanding governments worldwide disclose and use secret alien technologies obtained in alleged UFO crashes to stem climate change, a local paper said Wednesday.

ADVERTISEMENT

"I would like to see what (alien) technology there might be that could eliminate the burning of fossil fuels within a generation ... that could be a way to save our planet," Paul Hellyer, 83, told the Ottawa Citizen.

Alien spacecrafts would have traveled vast distances to reach Earth, and so must be equipped with advanced propulsion systems or used exceptional fuels, he told the newspaper.

Such alien technologies could offer humanity alternatives to fossil fuels, he said, pointing to the enigmatic 1947 incident in Roswell, New Mexico -- which has become a shrine for UFO believers -- as an example of alien contact.

"We need to persuade governments to come clean on what they know. Some of us suspect they know quite a lot, and it might be enough to save our planet if applied quickly enough," he said.

Hellyer became defense minister in former prime minister Lester Pearson's cabinet in 1963, and oversaw the controversial integration and unification of Canada's army, air force and navy into the Canadian Forces.

He shocked Canadians in September 2005 by announcing he once saw a UFO.

So.... Global Warming is a scarier notion now than Canada's government witholding information that alien's actually exist?

What a world, what a world...

[Orbit]

Oh no! We need to start raising money for a campaign to pressure the Martians to sign the Kyoto treaty!!!

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Kate Ravilious

for National Geographic News

February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)

Mars North Pole image

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Planets' Wobbles

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [september 13, 2006].)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

No Greenhouse

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

How inconvenient.

[Pobblebonk]

Oh no! We need to start raising money for a campaign to pressure the Martians to sign the Kyoto treaty!!!

Mars Melt Hints at Solar' date=' Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says[/url']

Kate Ravilious

for National Geographic News

February 28, 2007

Not sure why this is news - this idea's been doing the rounds for years. It still doesn't work; no one's denied that solar radiance has increased over the past couple of decades - in fact I cited a study that related to it, as I recall. The issue, as ever, is not whether the sun can cause global warming, but whether it can cause warming of the magnitude seen on Earth with the observed rapidity, and whether the increase in solar radiation corresponds to global warming on Earth. The answer to both, from studies that have specifically considered that issue, is no.

Mars has a fraction of Earth's atmosphere, amplifying the effects of increased solar radiation compared with our planet, and for sceptics who often argue that we don't have enough data on past climate changes on Earth, it's a bit rich to suppose we know enough about the Martian climate to claim the polar melting (well, sublimation) is even evidence of a warming trend. Especially going by data from three Martian summers (six years), when the present warming trend on this planet goes back a century or more (including periods of low solar irradiance).

Phil

[Orbit]

Allegre's second thoughts

LAWRENCE SOLOMON, Financial Post

Published: Friday, March 02, 2007

Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming.

"By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Dr. Allegre, a renowned geochemist, wrote 20 years ago in Cles pour la geologie.." Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming's "potential risks are very great" and demanding a new caring ethic that recognizes the globe's fragility in order to stave off "spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse."

In the 1980s and early 1990s, when concern about global warming was in its infancy, little was known about the mechanics of how it could occur, or the consequences that could befall us. Since then, governments throughout the western world and bodies such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have commissioned billions of dollars worth of research by thousands of scientists. With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.

His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l' Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."

Dr. Allegre's skepticism is noteworthy in several respects. For one, he is an exalted member of France's political establishment, a friend of former Socialist president Lionel Jospin, and, from 1997 to 2000, his minister of education, research and technology, charged with improving the quality of government research through closer co-operation with France's educational institutions. For another, Dr. Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution. His break with scientific dogma over global warming came at a personal cost: Colleagues in both the governmental and environmental spheres were aghast that he could publicly question the science behind climate change.

But Dr. Allegre had allegiances to more than his socialist and environmental colleagues. He is, above all, a scientist of the first order, the architect of isotope geodynamics, which showed that the atmosphere was primarily formed early in the history of the Earth, and the geochemical modeller of the early solar system. Because of his path-breaking cosmochemical research, NASA asked Dr. Allegre to participate in the Apollo lunar program, where he helped determine the age of the Moon. Matching his scientific accomplishments in the cosmos are his accomplishments at home: Dr. Allegre is perhaps best known for his research on the structural and geochemical evolution of the Earth's crust and the creation of its mountains, explaining both the title of his article in l' Express and his revulsion at the nihilistic nature of the climate research debate.

Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers," Dr. Allegre especially despairs at "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." The world would be better off, Dr. Allegre believes, if these "denouncers" became less political and more practical, by proposing practical solutions to head off the dangers they see, such as developing technologies to sequester C02. His dream, he says, is to see "ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear."

Lawrence Solomon@nextcity.com