Cato’s David Boaz Joins George Will in Peddling Bogus “Global Cooling” Stories
I did a post last month on some of the differences between classical liberalism and modern libertarianism but I don’t think I was making myself very clear. A practical example, however, helps.
Nowhere in the works of Adam Smith or John Stuart Mill, for example, is there anything about how if science indicates that certain form of human activity that was long thought to be harmless to others is, in fact, doing massive, hard-to-reverse damage to the long-term interests of billions of people that the correct response is to retreat into dogma and ignorance. And yet here’s Cato Institute Executive Vice President David Boaz teaming up with Washington Post columnist George Will to push the idea that there was a 1970s-era scientific consensus that we were facing dangerous “global cooling” and that, therefore, we shouldn’t take today’s warnings about global warming seriously.
The fact of the matter is that there was a bunch of media hype in the 1970s about a cooling trend. Now as probably know, the media sometimes hypes up bogus trend stories with no real basis in evidence. Neither Will nor Boaz are small children or lobotomy victims, so presumably they understand this, too. And that’s exactly what was happening in the 70s:
The supposed “global cooling” consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can’t make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.
The ’70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.
But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.
Yes, that’s right, even in the 60s and 70s the bulk of scientific concern was about warming. The evidence was, at that time, tenuous. But it’s grown steadily in every passing decade. This is not media hype. It’s real science. It’s possible, of course, that the vast majority of competent scientists are all part of a vast conspiracy to defraud the public into believing that human activity is causing the planet to warm. But it’s hard to see why that would happen. It is, however, easy to see why polluting industries and their hirelings in the think tank world would want to pretend that this is what’s happening.
87 Responses to “Cato’s David Boaz Joins George Will in Peddling Bogus “Global Cooling” Stories”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 16th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Yet too a degree, those ‘cooling’ hypotheses were correct: we do in fact appear to be seeing an increased albedo (reflection of incoming solar radiation away from the Earth) effect from aerosolized particulate pollution; but it’s not a net cooling effect. In fact, it may be helping ameliorate the effects of fossil-fuel related global warming (albeit at other costs including health).
So not only was there no consensus that this pollution-related cooling (albedo) effect would be dominant; neither was it an example of completely wrong science either.
February 16th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
It’s possible, of course, that the vast majority of competent scientists are all part of a vast conspiracy to defraud the public into believing that human activity is causing the planet to warm. But it’s hard to see why that would happen.
Ah, but that’s the genius of the Conservative critique: scientists are social democratic liberals who are invested in having ready-made reasons for the government to control economic activity and redistribute income in the form of “carbon credits” to poor, non-emissions producing countries. It really is a leftist plot.
February 16th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Here’s my favorite: climate scientists are afraid to publish studies that refute the consensus on global warming, because scientist who uncover new insights that lead to a dramatic shift in the understanding of their field of study will have trouble getting jobs and grants.
Seriously; I see that argument made all the time.
February 16th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Well, just ask Michael Creighton, scientists and environmentalists are like a religion, I mean, why on earth would 2 billion Muslims and Christians engage in a fanciful belief in a supernatural god who listens to their prayers and whatnot.
So, if Christians and other religious people can be so deluded, it stands to reasons that scientists can as well. Hell, I believe that some global warming theories are incorporated into flying spaghetti monsterism, and you know how many scientists are into that right?
Oh wait, you can’t ask Michael Creighton because he’s dead and rotting in enviro-hell! Hah!
February 16th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Well, I thought you were clear back then. Another illustration doesn’t hurt, though.
February 16th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Standard disclaimer that Boaz doesn’t speak for all libertarians…
February 16th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
“But it’s hard to see why that would happen.”
Yeah, but it’s easy to see why the opposite would happen. In science, the best way to advance your career is to prove the existing consensus wrong. Einstein didn’t succeed by proving the existence of the ether, he succeeded by disproving it. Feynman went against so many existing paradigms that people literally thought he was insane (and were right). Hawking has had conflicts with nearly every scientist in his field, himself included. The scientists we remember are all rebels, and it has always been that way. So where’s the incentive to go with the consensus?
February 16th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Oh dear. It is like finding out dad and mom have sex. So libertarians will do anything to assure that the people who have money retain their money? They will peddle lies on behalf of Exxon Mobile? Amazing! I’m astonished! Perhaps MY can ask the very serious Megan McArdle about this at the next get together.
February 16th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Re George Will
George Will, who dumped his first wife to trade her in on a younger model. Attached are a couple of links to refutations of his global warming denier claims.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/where_theres_a_george_will_theres_a_way_to_deny_gl.php
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/george-f-will-takes-on-science-loses.html#comments
February 16th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
“Neither Will nor Boaz are small children or lobotomy victims”
I’m afraid I’m going to need to see some evidence of that second part.
February 16th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Two quotes that apply even if I cannot remember where they came from -
*No eyes are so blind as thos who know what it is in their own best interest not to see.
*It is difficult to teach a man a thing when his paycheck depends on his not learning it.
February 16th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Will is just punching his ticket. This will only help him earn a living. Nobody that I know of in the Vatican at the time sided with Galileo. Science nor ideology have anything to do with this stuff from Conservative talkers and scribblers. The operative motivation is the market. People acting in their own self interest.
That is now a dominant theme aimed at the science world too. They are all just cashing in so the story goes. No doubt there is some truth to that. So what? What people believe about scientific theories means nothing really. Science is not about belief.
February 16th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Re: Now as probably know, the media sometimes hypes up bogus trend stories with no real basis in evidence.
The cooling story was not bogus and it had a basis in real world evidence. I recall some horrenous winters growing up in the 70s, and also stories about how you could find snow banks still unmelted in the UP of Michigan as late as the Fourth of July. That’s climatary bad news, since snow reflects almost 100% of sunlight and the planet can cool really, really fast if snow persists into the summer months and an ice age can start. Obviously that did not happen and the hype turned out to be just exaggerated hype as such things often do in the media. But it wasn’t entirely without basis in reality.
February 16th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Mmm, it looks like the 70s was an era when a Kuhnian paradigm shift was occuring. Some scientists had a theory for global warming and some early data began to confirm this beating out a competing theory, which, ultimately broke down in the face of evidence. This created a new paradigm, influencing the textbooks etc. Looks like a normal occurrence to me.
In any case, I don’t believe in gravity because Aristotle had some other ideas about why things fall.
February 16th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Localized weather patterns global climate.
How many times do we have to say this?
February 16th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Really, I’m less and less interested in this sort of story.
The American right is an intellectual wasteland — with tumbleweeds blowing across the blasted sands. Good lord, even Ross Douthat is finding it all too depressing to waste much time talking about it.
They’ll keep saying this sort of thing forever. But you know, the Pope still claims to be infallible. I don’t waste time telling people he’s wrong.
February 16th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Also, I hope you aren’t indicating that John Stuart Mill should be considered a libertarian? He did write more than “On Liberty”. For example his Principles of Political Economy are downright socialist (someone tell Rush!).
Here is an example:
“Whatever mankind produce, must be produced in the modes and under the conditions imposed by the constitution of external things, and by the inherent properties of their own bodily and mental structure….
But it is not so with the Distribution of Wealth. That is a matter of human institution solely. The things once there, mankind, individually or collectively can do with them as they like….The rules by which it is determined are what the opinions and feelings of the ruling portion of the community make them, and are very different in different ages and countries; and might be still more different, if mankind so chose.”
–John Stuart Mill (from his Principles of Political Economy)
February 16th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
What gives? I think I heard this global cooling garbage about 6 years ago and have seen it quite soundly blown apart about 900 times. Wow.
More broadly, and as noted already, whether someone is making the bogus “cooling” argument or a bogus temperature history argument, the pretense must always be that the vast majority of climate scientists have only been spending their entire lives dedicated to science as a cover for their science-hating alter-egos whose singular focus is liberal, environmentalist ideology. How does that even pass the smell test? There may certainly be a few out there who actually do fit that description, but I think these people are making at best a childishly naive claim. My own anecdotal experience is that those in the science-y academic fields are much more comfortable with the facts and data than with the gray areas of politics, policy, and, uh, other human beings in general.
But no, George Will wears a fucking bow tie so he’s serious and smart and must have a microphone.
February 16th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Er, global warming is actually quite an old idea. It was first hypothesized by the great chemist Svante Arrhenius around the year 1900- oddly enough, Arrhenius appears to have thought global warming would be a _good_ thing. And in the 1950s, when we learned more about the infrared absorptive properties of carbon dioxide, people started talking more about the theory.
What happened in the 1970s and 1980s was that we began to get experimental evidence for a warming trend. The underlying theory, though, was much older and developed in advance of detailed climate observations.
February 16th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
“In any case, I don’t believe in gravity because Aristotle had some other ideas about why things fall.”
You shouldn’t believe in it. So far, every theory explaining it has been shot down. Now, we have several theories, and most of them can’t be verified through experimentation. Gravity is a scientific mess right now. Yes, we can agree that gravity must exist on a macroscopic scale. But we can’t even measure it for distances less than 5mm. We can’t even say it works on the molecular scale, much less the subatomic scale. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, gravity is the least understood concept in all of science. Yet it’s always held up as something that’s obviously true and without controversy.
February 16th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
For those who haven’t read it, and have open minds, here is a link to the text of Michael Crichton’s famous speech, “Aliens Cause Global Warming”.
February 16th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Re fostert
You shouldn’t believe in it. So far, every theory explaining it has been shot down. Now, we have several theories, and most of them can’t be verified through experimentation. Gravity is a scientific mess right now. Yes, we can agree that gravity must exist on a macroscopic scale. But we can’t even measure it for distances less than 5mm. We can’t even say it works on the molecular scale, much less the subatomic scale. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, gravity is the least understood concept in all of science. Yet it’s always held up as something that’s obviously true and without controversy.
One has to e careful about making statements like this. The correct statement is that a theory of quantum gravity does not exist. On the macroscopic scale, for most problems in celestial mechanics, Newtons theory of gravity, supplemented by treating relativistic effects as a small (very small) perturbation and irregularities in the mass distribution of gravitating bodies as multipole effects works extremely well. On the microscopic scale, for most problems in quantum physics, the effects of gravitation are far too small to be measurable. Where the theory runs into trouble is in the interior of black holes where it predicts that gravitational collapse will continue until a mathematical point is reached, which is contrary to the quantum spin/statistics theorem.
February 16th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Yep, DaveInHackensack, if there’s one person I’m interested in consulting when it comes to issues related to environmental science, it’s an M.D. who’s made a career as a science fiction writer!
What, you couldn’t find a peer reviewed research paper to back up your opinions? It’s kind of sad when issues of science become a matter of personal identity issues– your rich NJ Republican friends wouldn’t invite you to their parties and mock you horrendously if you didn’t toe the party line (why does a political party have a “party line” about scientific research?). We get it. You’re a Republican. Saying stupid shit about climate science is what it takes to give you a feeling of “belonging.” Spare us your worthless opinion and save it for your loudmouthed republican friends who think it’s cool to say stupid shit.
February 16th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
When this comes up I always point out that Habermas makes some references to the threat of global warming in “Legitimation Crisis”, written in 1973. Not a climate scientist I know but I find it an interesting data point anyway.
February 16th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Here’s a link to an Australian blogger on Scienceblogs who has a number of threads about the subject of global warming.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/?utm_source=bloglist&utm_medium=dropdown
Note that one of his threads eviscerates fucktard Fred Barnes, another right wing global warming denier.
February 16th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Tyro,
That was an impressive job of parading your ignorance and closed-mindedness. Nice work.
BTW, I happen to have a degree in environmental sciences, and I am skeptical of some of the more extravagant claims of global warming alarmists. That’s not because I’m toeing any party line, but because I have a habit of thinking for myself, and I’ve lived long enough to remember when such skepticism wasn’t cause for immediate ostracism — in fact, it was shared by the chairman of my environmental sciences department. He was an old-school environmental scientist, the sort whose life’s work was taking care of the everyday miracles the rest of us take for granted, e.g., that clean water comes out of the faucet we we turn on the tap.
And I can’t recall the last time I went to a party with “rich NJ Republicans”. Hackensack isn’t exactly NJ horse country.
February 16th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Dave, your behavior isn’t “skepticism,” it’s mindless adherence to a Republican religious fantacism brought on by a desperate drudge against Al Gore and reinforced by a mindless social/cultural demands related to the Republican identity. I’m going to mostly take the side of actual scientists who haven’t been alarmist, just factual, rather than the side of ignorant Republican politicians like Sen. Inhofe and socially desperate Republicans looking for validation from their talk-radio-listening peers. The fact that you’ve been taken in by such an ignorant crowd is a testimony to the demands of social conformity from your crowd and a sign that the Republican identity demands a rather fiercely anti-intellectual conformity.
February 16th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Hector, you leave out one huge, major factor in the history of thought regarding global warming.
Up until mid-century, scientists had actually by and large considered and rejected Arrhenius’ theory. Initially it had been thought to be plausible, but people realized that the ocean was a big, ginormous carbon sink.
It was only around the 1950’s that scientists realized that the time parameter for dissolving and mixing CO2 in the ocean was relatively large, and in the short-to-medium term only the surface of the ocean absorbed any CO2. That changed everything.
February 16th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Not meant as a criticism toward you, btw. Just that it’s important to know that when thinking about how global warming came into scientific consciousness.
February 16th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Here’s another link to a commentary about George Wills’ views on global warming.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/02/the_global_warming_cranks_-_ge.php
February 16th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
I’m pleased to learn that neither our resident anti-abortion crusader or our resident kill all Arabs crusader are global warming deniers. Maybe there’s hope for people yet!
February 16th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
desperate grudge against Al Gore. That was either a typo or a freudian slip on my part.
The fact remains that you can’t be a Republican without a rhetorical condemnation of the reality of climate change. Being a Republican is all about hating environmentalists and al gore and mocking professional researchers. If you weren’t like that, your cultural value system would turn you more towards the “politically apathetic” or the Democratic. Republican party membership has a strong cultural component, and the DavesInHackensack of the world who identify with the Republican party are going to end up parroting their talking points and cultural totems, as propagated by Rush Limbaugh and Sen. Inhofe. That’s pretty much all there is to it. We see otherwise intelligent, well-read people get taken in by the propaganda spouted on the WSJ op-ed page because the particularly sociall insecure Republicans think that this is what you need to believe to be a “real Republican.” While it’s pitiable and, to a large degree, extremely annoying, it doesn’t make their adherents any less pathetic.
At the end of the day, DaveInHackensack, you had to resort to pointing to an article by a non-practicing MD who went into writing science fiction rather than pointing to an actual set of peer-reviewed papers. that’s the exact opposite of what makes someone seem like they have an educated opinion, and it’s awfully similar to the sort of anti-evolution rhetoric that we also see from the right wing.
February 16th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Tyro,
The technical term for what you are doing is “talking out of your ass”. You know little about me, and I don’t fit the caricature into which you seem to feel compelled to shoe-horn me. You may learn more in life if you assume your correspondents are, in fact, actual human beings and not caricatures.
Regarding Al Gore, others may be interested to know that Michael Crichton admired him and considered him a friend. That, and Crichton’s difference of opinion with Gore on the subject of Global Warming, came up during a 2007 Charlie Rose interview of Michael Crichton.
February 16th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
This isn’t true. Firstly, unambiguously proving contrary to established consensus is rare. Sure, if a scientists manages this, he/she will be lauded.
But, secondly, much more often and what applies here is pursuing hypothesis which contradict the consensus and, no, that generally isn’t a path to tenure.
I’m not a GW skeptic and have no desire to bolster their arguments, but this criticism of this particular argument of theirs is ignorant of the actual culture and practice of science. People (in particular, and notably, cranks) often make arguments about science using giants like Newton or Einstein as examples when, in fact, these kinds of revolutionaries are very atypical. Most science is incremental and technical, is not creative, and reinforces the status quo. That’s good, because the status quo is usually mostly correct.
It is very difficult for a working scientist to be a dissident of the consensus—and this is more true every day. In general, US grad schools are training a large surplus of scientists—it is very difficult to find post-doc positions, very difficult to find jobs at universities, very difficult to find funding, and very difficult to get tenure. Being a GW skeptic will get you a job at a conservative think-tank and press interviews, but it’s a strike against you as a climate scientist.
February 16th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
“The correct statement is that a theory of quantum gravity does not exist.”
Yes and no. Yes, Newton’s theory can produce pretty accurate results for most applications. But Newton’s mechanism, Action at a Distance, has been soundly discredited. Nobody can explain the mechanism by which gravity works. Yes, we can posit the existence of the Graviton, but we can’t say such a particle exists until we can detect it. And that won’t happen in the next 100 years. While we can measure the effects of gravity on a macroscopic scale, we cannot explain what causes it. In that sense, our theories of Gravity are less developed than our theories of Global Climate Change.
February 16th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
I really don’t care what Michael Crichton’s specific problem was, but his embrace by the right was only done because it gave them more ammunition in their mindless vendetta against actual researchers and Al Gore. You’re ACTING like a caricature, DaveInHackensack, so it only makes sense for me to categorize you that way, the same as all the other right-wingers with whom you mindlessly walk in lockstep regarding this issue on in your desperation to be a “real Republican.”
Al Gore was on the side of the angels. Sen. Inhofe and the anti-science Republicans and the WSJ op-ed page writers aren’t. Trying to desperately imitate the latter group makes you out to be kind of a fool. You could have referred to actual climate scientists if you wanted to, but you chose not to. Instead you pointed to Republican cultural touchstones such as the Republican embrace of Michael Crichton. You’re the one who chose to be a cultural Republican. At least own it.
February 16th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Keith, at the same time, there are plenty of tenured climate scientists who don’t have to care what the consensus is. I’d go so far as to say that since many of them predated the serious global warming work that they’d have an opening to be in out-and-out denial, if they were so inclined. Particularly, if George Will’s writing were true (which it isn’t), you’d think the “global cooling” scientists of the 70s would, from their position as secure tenured professors, be the ones best-placed to condemn the climate change scientists.
Even plate tectonics had elder geologists who went to the grave questioning their reality. You’d expect that there would still be a group of senior climate sciensts still questioning the research that, at the very least, would give Republicans someone to point to. Instead the best they can do is point to Michael Crichton and a academic whose best argument he can muster is “spending money you would have spent on reducing emissions on other projects would save more lives.”
February 16th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Actually, I think the first post was clear but wrong, while the new one isn’t clear. The first seemed to distinguish classical liberalism from libertarianism by saying that the first allows governmental or collective intervention in the markets to deal with externalities. Brad’s point was, correctly, that classical liberalism could live with externalities because things would come out ok in the end, which they didn’t; and then, he concludes, modern American liberalism responds with more intervention and ilbertarianism with a radically unregulated and individualistic view of markets that Adam Smith could never have imagined.
The second post almost makes me want to defend libertarianism. This time, it seems to say that what’s wrong with it, as opposed to classical or modern liberalism, is that it denies science. But it needn’t. It and other, quite different forms of right-wing ideology are falling back on lies, but that’s not their intrinsic definition or problem. The problem is that they have to fall back on lies because the truth would shred the ideology: we couldn’t live with free markets, or at least our grandchildren would die.
February 16th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Re fostert
1. Without going into esoteric detail, the notion of action at a distance was replaced in the 19th century with the concept of a gravitational field, in analogy with an electric field. The analogy is not exact because, in gravitation, there is no analogy to a magnetic field and negative gravitational “charge” does not exist (it would violate the TCP theorem). This was known as classical field theory. Of course, it could be argued that replacing action at a distance with the notion of a field is merely moving the goal posts.
2. However, the General Theory of Relativity explains the concept of gravitation by using Riemannian geometry. That is, the presence of gravitating bodies cause space-time in their vicinity to become curved. Its the curvature of space-time due to the presence of the Sun that causes, for instance, the Earth to be attracted to the Sun. However, to zeroth order, the result of the relativistic calculation devolves to the Newtonian inverse square law.
February 16th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
“Firstly, unambiguously proving contrary to established consensus is rare.”
I’m more familiar with physics, so I’ll stick to that. But in physics, there’s a paradigm shift about every twenty years. In between, research is primarily geared towards bolstering the recent paradigm shift. During the interludes, anomalies build up, leading to another paradigm shift. At the turn of the 20th century, we were seeing problems with classical mechanics. Many scientists were looking at alternatives, and Einstein came up with one. But that he came up with the best alternative doesn’t mean everybody else still believe classical mechanics. Twenty years later, it was Einstein (and the majority) who was on the wrong side of progress, while dozens of scientists were developing the next trend, quantum mechanics. Since then, previously absurd concepts like quantum electrodynamics and string theory have risen from obscurity to prominence. And now, string theory is facing major challenges. One of the leading challengers is Lisa Randall, who has been tenured at Princeton, MIT, and Harvard, none of which are slacker schools when it comes to physics. It’s hard to see how her career has been hurt much by challenging the consensus. The fact is, if you are creative and persistent enough, you’ll get tenure. You don’t have to go with the flow to get it. There really is only one secret to science: have the data to back up your theory. Yes, being a climate skeptic will hurt your tenure chances, but that’s because the data isn’t there to support the position. If the data were there, getting tenure would be a lot easier.
February 16th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Well, given that Libertianism has been finally tried extensively as a social and economic model in several countries – Somalia, Congo, Afghanistan… I’m sure we’ve tested out its strengths and weaknesses.
February 16th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
“However, the General Theory of Relativity explains the concept of gravitation by using Riemannian geometry”
I’m familiar with Relativity. But it still cannot be reconciled with quantum theory, which is why so many physicists are working on the problem. With some reconciliation, the mechanism by which matter causes space to warp cannot be determined. I’m not saying Relativity is a bad theory, it’s just very incomplete. In electromagnetism, we have QED, which can explain both the microscopic and macroscopic with a stunning degree of accuracy. We have nothing like that with gravity. And String Theory is so far a rather unpalatable proposition.
February 16th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
About cooling effect of aerosols: this is mainly sulphuric acid which makes very shiny droplets in upper atmosphere. And when it leaves that location, after a while, it makes acid rains. Main source: burning coal for energy and volcanic explosions.
Man-made source of airborne sulphuric acid decreased because there are measures taken to reduce acid rain. When I was a wee lad, I was on a school excursion in a sulfur mine where they were mining sulfur in an open pit mine, pretty clean stuff, but some was mixed with dirt. We were explained that this dirty mining residue was used in a little power station that the mine was operating, and with ca. 50% sulfur it was a very good fuel. (It was in 60-ties).
These good old days are gone. Perhaps China is burning unscrubbed coal, but they are improving. So, unless with get more volcanic explosion, the amount of sulfur in the air will be going down. Perhaps this should be reversed?
February 16th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
I read so you don’t have to. The Michael Crichton piece linked to was just a typical mix of BS and guilt-by-association. On and on he goes. What a waste of time.
February 16th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Re fostert
In electromagnetism, we have QED, which can explain both the microscopic and macroscopic with a stunning degree of accuracy. We have nothing like that with gravity. And String Theory is so far a rather unpalatable proposition.
I am afraid I will have to take some exception with Mr. fosterts’ characterization of QED. It certainly has great computational power as it predicts the value of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron to 10 significant digits in agreement with experiment. However, the computations also require, through renormalization, that infinite quantities be added and divided together. Thus, for instance, mass renormalization sets m(0) – I = m, where m(0) is the “bare mass’, whatever the hell that is, of the electron, m is the observed mass of the electron, and I is a logarithmically divergent integral. From a rigorous mathematical point of view, this is mathematically preposterous, i.e. m(0) is assumed to be logarithmically infinite. There is no basis for such an assumption, other then it makes the answer come out right!
February 16th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
“There is no basis for such an assumption, other then it makes the answer come out right!”
True, the math is really sketchy, but it’s still better than gravity. QED has mechanisms that can be explained through particle interactions. And it has results which are extremely accurate. We can’t do that with gravity, we can’t even measure it on very large and very small scales. String Theory tries to explain gravity, but we don’t have a chance of proving those theories until we build a collider with the orbit of Jupiter. And Relativity doesn’t really even make sense on the subatomic scale. Hell, we may have extra dimensions wrapped up into the subatomic. As far as gravity goes, the Standard Model does the safest thing: it ignores it.
Overall, my point was that science knows a hell of a lot less than most people would suspect. That doesn’t concern me too much because I’m an engineer (despite my physics degree). We engineers are a careful bunch and avoid working in unproven realms of physics. What concerns me is that we hold different fields of science to different levels scrutiny for strictly political reasons. If we held physics to the level of scrutiny demanded of Evolution or Climate Science, we’d conclude that physicists have no idea what they’re talking about. Physicists have a distinct advantage here, though. Few people can listen to a physicist without either tuning out after a minute or going insane. As an engineer, I use that technique to get board members out of my hair. When I start talking about some of the more esoteric concepts related to what I’m working on, they run away and I can work in peace.
February 16th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
re: oddly enough, Arrhenius appears to have thought global warming would be a _good_ thing.
It is a good thing. Without the Greenhouse Effect the Earth would have the same surface temperature as Mars.
Re: And now, string theory is facing major challenges.
String Theory has never been proven (unlike quantum theory, or relativity). It’s easier to challenge a theory that has no solid empirical evidence backing it up.
February 16th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
“Well, given that Libertianism has been finally tried extensively as a social and economic model in several countries – Somalia, Congo, Afghanistan… I’m sure we’ve tested out its strengths and weaknesses”
Straw man. Anarchy doesn’t equal libertarianism. A closer analogue of actual libertarianism today would be the Cayman Islands — not exactly hell on earth.
February 16th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
“Overall, my point was that science knows a hell of a lot less than most people would suspect.”
I’ll add that math isn’t really any better. The one thing we learn in both math and science is how much more we know that we don’t know. I hate to get all Rumsfeld here, but it’s true. For every question we answer, we open up a dozen more. On the plus side, we have a better appreciation of complexity than we ever did. Newton’s dream of a mathematically determinate universe is further away than it ever was.
February 16th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
When you interview for a university position, they don’t ask you about your views on global warming. They will instead ask you about your publications and research program. If a candidate was doing good work demonstrating that global warming models were incorrect or incomplete, that wouldn’t be a bar to hiring.
February 16th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
That horse’s ass George Will wrote that Global ice has returned to 1979 levels. Well, no. Antarctic ice is a pretty much a static commodity since the Antarctic land mass acts as a tamp to big swings. Arctic ice, meanwhile, is where it was in the record setting year of 2007. (2008 was almost as extensive.)
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
(In fact, the record seems to be a little less than at the same point in 2007. But the difference is probably inside the margin of error.)
February 16th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Re fostert
Actually, I think that most physicists would consider quantum mechanics more incomprehensible then even general relativity. A few quotations illustrate this.
1. Richard Feynman: If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t understand quantum mechanics.
2. Steven Weinberg: Quantum Mechanics is a totally preposterous theory which, unfortunately, appears to be correct.
3. Lawrence Krauss: Nobody understand quantum mechanics.
For example, nobody can explain what quantum entanglement is all about. This is a phenomenon that makes absolutely no sense, but appears to be real. Another example is the 2 slit phenomenon where an unobserved photon goes through 2 slits but an observed photon only goes through one or the other.
February 16th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
“String Theory has never been proven”
And it probably never will be. That doesn’t change the fact that it is quite popular overall and is pretty much dogma on some campuses. You can get tenure by supporting it. It is a local consensus in many places even if no theory holds a global consensus. In the end, I’ll die long before any of this is resolved. I just hope some better theory will come along. Randall’s work fascinates me, but it needs more time in the oven. That’s not her fault, this is really difficult stuff.
February 16th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Re: It is a good thing. Without the Greenhouse Effect the Earth would have the same surface temperature as Mars.
Well, yes. Like most good things, you can have too much of it. What I meant was, a greenhouse effect _in excess of that which prevailed prior to about 1700_ would be a bad thing.
Zephyrus, thanks for the correction.
February 16th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
“Actually, I think that most physicists would consider quantum mechanics more incomprehensible then even general relativity.”
Agreed. General Relativity is pretty easy if you’re very good at Analytic Geometry and Complex Analysis. I’m not sure if Quantum Theory can be understood by human beings. If Feynman can’t understand it, I doubt anyone can. He had the perfect balance of pure genius and pure insanity that few people on the planet have ever achieved. If that’s not enough, I don’t know what is. But you missed the best quote. Neils Bohr said this about the emerging filed of Quantum Mechanics: “I don’t like it, and I’m sorry I had anything to do with it.” Yet he founded the institute that led to those theories. Well, him and the Carlsberg brewery. So tip a glass of Carlsberg, and tell your wife that she can’t prove you were there at that time.
February 16th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
The fact remains that you can’t be a Republican without a rhetorical condemnation of the reality of climate change. Being a Republican is all about hating environmentalists and al gore and mocking professional researchers. If you weren’t like that, your cultural value system would turn you more towards the “politically apathetic” or the Democratic.
Well no, not really. I’m not a huge fan of environmentalists in a selfish, cynical, “why should I care about the future of the planet” way, but I admit that climate change is a reality and yet I’m a Republican. And I don’t even hate Gore, though I would’ve hated seeing him in the White House.
February 16th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
“So tip a glass of Carlsberg, and tell your wife that she can’t prove you were there at that time.”
I’ll note that this is called the Carlsberg Uncertainty Principle. Not to be confused with the Heisenberg version. In the Carlsberg version, Plank’s Constant approaches infinity as the consumption of Carlsbergs increases.
February 16th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
The problem is those horrible scientists in the New Class. Here’s Irving Kristol explaining the conspiracy of hippie scientists:
February 16th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Re: I’m pleased to learn that neither our resident anti-abortion crusader or our resident kill all Arabs crusader are global warming deniers. Maybe there’s hope for people yet!
Glad to please. Actually, I’d see abortion and global warming as related evils which stem from the same basic root- the desire of post-Enlightenment Western man to rebel against the order of nature.
February 16th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
“Glad to please.”
Hector, I have usually been your enemy, but I have defended you on very rare occasions. But I’m glad to see you support humanity in this case. But I’m even more glad that you did it with the concept of rational thought. It appears you are capable of it. It would be nice if you continued to propose your thoughts without the Christianity. Christianity is fine as a belief, but not as a rational argument. You’ll notice that I only bring in my Buddhism when you bring in your Christianity. Let’s keep it that way. But that starts with you not bringing up Christian philosophy in the first place. This is a political blog, keep framing your concepts within rational thought.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:12 am
Fostert,
Er, no. I see no reason why I should conform to the fads of a today’s Yglesian hipsters. The only proper framework for moral reasoning remains, as always, the teleological natural-law understanding of man and his purpose.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:16 am
I see no reason why I should conform to the fads of a today’s Yglesian hipsters.
Not after you paid so much for that reproduction Crusader garb and plastic sword.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Well, of course libertarians will deny global warming in any way they can. Global warming precisely vitiates market fundamentalism. Left to themselves, without any government restraint, corporations will not bring about the common good. On the contrary, if they continue as they’ve been doing they will make the earth unfit for human habitation. The invisible hand is not beneficent; it’s murderous. Once enough people realize this, the days of corporate rule will be gone forever.
The masters of the universe are fighting for their lives.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Only because, in the world we live in, being a GW skeptic means you’re wrong. It’s hard to impress upon experts that you’re an expert too if you’re spectacularly wrong about the defining issue of your field, which is why GW skeptics have the difficulties you refer to.
But if the skeptics were actually correct, it would mean they would have overwhelming evidence for that, and they would find themselves sought out from every corner. The fact that GW skeptics are marginalized is less of a function of their position being in the minority, and more to do with their position being completely at odds with reality.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:01 am
SLC Says:
On the macroscopic scale, for most problems in celestial mechanics, Newtons theory of gravity, supplemented by treating relativistic effects as a small (very small) perturbation and irregularities in the mass distribution of gravitating bodies as multipole effects works extremely well.
I disagree a bit. As far as I know, there is no mathematical solution for the classic n-body problem in celestial mechanics. All you can do for orbital calculations (please correct me if I am wrong, as I am just a casual reader in this subject) is use successive approximations over finite intervals of time. If you wish to know where the earth will be in a billon years, and you want to see the answer in your lifetime, I suspect that the time interval has to be so large that the introduced error makes the eventual answer useless. (For example, I believe that no one actually knows if Jupiter will eventually eject Mars from the solar system.)
February 17th, 2009 at 1:21 am
“The only proper framework for moral reasoning remains, as always, the teleological natural-law understanding of man and his purpose.”
Then you remain an idiot. Your philosophy remains the most idiotic philosophy on the planet. The only philosophy that remains is science. And Christianity remains as the only philosophy that still opposes science. Science put a man on the moon. Science created nuclear technology. In fact, science is the only concept that created all of technology, including the keyboard you are typing on. Religion is a useful viscous influence, but it provides no technological or scientific influence. The only influence religion provides is that of resistance to scientific endeaveour. There is an interesting exception during the brief period during the Dark Ages when Christianity accepted some ancient Greek philosophy. But that was a time when Muslim philosophy was the greatest in the world. And they were bringing that very same philosophy to all of the world. That was when Algebra (Al jebr) was formulated. Yes, it comes from India, but they hadn’t made it real yet. And, yes, the numerals come from the original Sanskrit, but they were formalized by the Arabs. Ultimately, the Arabs gave us our knowledge. And your knowledge too. But you Indians forgot it. Strangely, it was the Muslims who did it to you. They preserved it, but they prevented the indigenous Indians from hearing it. But knowledge is power, it’s no surprise the Mughals used it against you.
But you should not use knowledge against anyone in reprisal. Nobody should. The distribution of knowledge works in everyone’s favor. Let’s do it.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:34 am
Alan: If you wish to know where the earth will be in a billon years, and you want to see the answer in your lifetime, I suspect that the time interval has to be so large that the introduced error makes the eventual answer useless.
It is really sad. Knowing a precise estimate for position of Earth billion years from now would be so useful….
Actually, there some something metaphysical here. People use the principle of quantum mechanics to compute a lot of useful stuff.
As far as two-slit paradox is concerned, I do not see any. For example, unobserved Sen, Burris talks with everybody, an observed one, with no one.
February 17th, 2009 at 3:16 am
“It is really sad. Knowing a precise estimate for position of Earth billion years from now would be so useful….”
Umm, no, that means nothing. Wherever we are, that’s where we are. It is completely irrelevant. It’s the science that means something.
“As far as two-slit paradox is concerned, I do not see any.”
If you don’t see the paradox, you just don’t get it. I’d say you should take some acid and think about it, but you just can’t get any good acid anymore. The Hog Farm doesn’t really sell any more. But if you’re looking, ask for Sandoz recipe. If it ain’t Sandoz, it’s crap. People have tried to synthesize LSD, but Hoffman’s recipe is the best. Only Owsley Stanley ever made it better. But that’s pretty much impossible to find now. Bless him.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:52 am
““As far as two-slit paradox is concerned, I do not see any.”
In the end, this is the most fundamental concept. No concept can ever explicitly explain the difference between microscopic and macroscopic more clearly. If you get get this concept, you understand the most fundamental conflict in physics. It comes down to the meaning of observation. But, again, it opens up so many questions. What is observation? Who can observe? We can create an amazing apparatus to observe such things, but who is really observing it? If an elephant did it, would it be the same? Well, yes. But what does that say about our ability to observe it? At what point in consciousness does the observation break down? Can a cat see it? Can a lizard? Can a worm? The very act of consciousness creates a question about who can really observe. It comes down to an issue of sentience, and then we get into old school Buddhist philosophy. The weirdest thing about this is that the most modern scientists have to ask that question of Tibetan monks. Ultimately, the deepest questions of physics cannot be removed from the the deepest questions of cognition. We simply cannot remove physics from cognitive theory. And the Tibetan monks have the most extensive body of experimentation in that field. Western science has only seriously studied cognition for 50 years, Tibetans have been studying it for 600 years. Christians can claim that Descartes studied it, and he did. But his claims are just plain stupid, unlike the Buddhist studies. Padmasambadva introduced a very interesting process of study that that only the Tibetans have continued. Nobody has ever continued it but the Tibetans. And it’s 600 years of cognitive experimentation. Strangely enough, there is no more consistent body of scientific research in history. One can question whether their methods are truly scientific, but nobody can ever question the consistency of their research. What they learned is now being studied by Western scientists, and it’s quite interesting. One thing we know now is that it isn’t a joke.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Re JJ
Irving Kristol was a man with no training or expertise in any branch of science, who, among other things, was an evolution denier. His opinion about science and scientists is completely irrelevant as he had no competence to pontificate on the subject.
Re Alan
I don’t want to play expert in celestial mechanics, which was not my field of study or research in physics, but my understanding of the subject as regards the Solar System is as follows.
It is true that the n body problem cannot be solved exactly. However, it can be broken down into a series of 2 body problems which can then be solved using perturbation theory. For instance, in the case of the Solar System, one can treat each of the planets and the sun as a series of 2 body problems, each of which can be solved exactly, as Issac Newton did 400 years ago. However, there remains the effect of each of the planets on the others, which goes to the stability of the Solar System. Newton famously gave up and essentially said god did it by nudging each of the planets every once in a while to maintain stability. A hundred years later, Laplace reduced the effects of the planets on each other to a series of 2 body problems and proved, at least to lowest order in perturbation theory, that the system was, in fact, stable over long periods of time (when questioned by Napoleon as to what influence god might have on the subject, Laplace famously replied that he had no need of that hypothesis). However, there are a number of possibilites of effects that are extremely small but that could, over long periods of time cause instability.
1. It is possible that computations of higher order perturbation effects, although unmeasurably small, might, over long periods of time cause instability.
2. It is possible that synergistic effects of, say, Jupiter and the Earth both acting on Mars, might cause instability in the latters’ orbit.
3. It is possible that assuming only 2 body interactions is flawed and that there are multibody forces between gravitating objects, although there is no evidence of such forces at the present time.
4. It is possible that the quadrapole moment of the sun, although its effects are barely measurable on the orbit of Mercury (it is some 50 times smaller then relativistic effects) might cause instability to occur over long periods of time because it yields a non-central force. This would be very much of a stretch, however.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:37 am
The problem is those horrible scientists in the New Class.
Thanks for pointing us to that, JJ. Highly disturbing that, basically, you have an entire political movement that put the scientists clearly in their sniper-sights as enemies of the state, though completely in keeping with the Trotskyite overtones of the modern movement conservatives.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:25 am
SLC: Thanks for the info.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Re: I’m not sure if Quantum Theory can be understood by human beings.
Depends on waht you mean by “Understood”. The math is comprehensible and not too terribly arcane (for someone with a background in higher math that is). Where the trouble starts is if you try to grasp the quantum world instinctually: it just cuts against the grain of human perceptions.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:58 am
Пинайте своего хостера – сайт с трудом открылся
March 11th, 2009 at 4:14 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 12th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 16th, 2009 at 4:31 am
stripsaver nude screensaver strippers free lady mature picture xxx chat lesbian open room free nude vivien big black butt gallery cheerleaders anal sex
iowa hawkeye screensavers
March 17th, 2009 at 2:20 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:52 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:20 am
viagra
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:59 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:43 am
I want to say – thank you for this! viagra
April 11th, 2009 at 5:20 am
Ребята, огромный Вам риспект! сейчас соседу отправлю… )
April 11th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Замечательный материал. Коли успею сегодня, то подруге дам прочитать. Она у меня спец в этом.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Ну это не по мне. Ну и дам совет.. Сделайте ленту комментариев.
April 15th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Ребята, огромный Вам риспект! сейчас корешу отправлю… )
April 18th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Неделю назад приходилось читать подобные записи на иностранных блогах, но это не значит что Ваш пост мне не понравился.