I had some intense experiences of doubt while vacationing in the mountains - or, rather, an intensified sensitivity to the uncertainty that governs our lives. In the end, it proved exhilarating, and strengthened my faith (which is not, of course, a form of certainty, but a means of living in spite of that fundamental uncertainty.)
In this connection, here is something for Sam Harris, who is so concerned about scientific illiteracy: Resisting climate hysteria.
The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public ...
This has much to say, actually, about what we might call the decline in standards of discourse.
See also Getting a grip on Greenland's future.
Let me repeat the excerpt you included:
ReplyDelete"The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing."
I say "yes" as an endorsement of the second and third sentences. However, I say "no" as a rejection of the premise in the first sentence because of a single phrase within that sentence: You see, I have serious misgivings and I doubt that future generations will be bemused or astounded by the current shenanigans; call me a cynical pessimist, but it is not beyond imagination to have future generations that are even more gullible than the current generation(s). After all, do you imagine that our parents' or grandparents' generations could have imagined that people in 2009 could be collectively so easily fooled by politicians, promoters, and media (on so many levels about so many issues)?
I checked out the "climate hysteria" article, which says, "...only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect." The context of the quote indicates that this should not be a matter for concern, but no argument really supports that assumption.
ReplyDeleteIs there any evidence that greenhouse gasses do not build up in the atmosphere as they do in greenhouses? Hot and cold spells in the past may have other causes besides greenhouse gasses. Today, there might be ameliorating influences on greenhouse gas levels, but I'm not sure how much effect that they have.
The phrase "greenhouse gas" is an analogy - in some ways the atmosphere (notably in the way it can trap warmth) does work as a greenhouse does. But argument by analogy is among the weakest kinds of argument and the earth's atmosphere functions in a manner far more complex than what goes on in a greenhouse. It is also worth noting that most recent research indicates that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is an effect of higher temperatures not their cause.
ReplyDelete