With the current very cold weather in the much of the northern hemisphere, (with e.g. 877 new snowfall records set last week in the USA) and record lows in Europe, perhaps some “real science” is needed, based on unbiased data and the lack of creating or promoting fear where it is not needed. A perfect place to re-start our thinking would be God’s promise that “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease.” (Gen. 8:22).

This all does not mean that stewardship of the natural and physical environment around us is not important. It is important; in fact, I would suggest that those who believe the above text, can be the only real environmentalists. Because this truth is not a hoax, it will be as valid in 2010 as it was in 2009 and has always been. In this light, I would like to wish you and your readers a very prosperous New Year from Langley, British Columbia, Canada. (Yes, when I read the names of Christine Stewart and Maurice Strong, I once again realized that Canadians have been duped.)

Its not too far fetched when you consider the evil people who run this planet and their agenda for all of us.

I absolutely agree the Left uses this for its own purposes. But that is true of any issue that is left to the Left.

If the Right were pushing it, or piling onto it, it would figure out how to use it for opposite purposes. Like maintaining 1st World hegemony in the world, Pat Buchanan-type protectionism against outsourcing to reckless emitter countries like China, a carbon-inputs tariff. (3rd World is 3.9 more ‘emissions intensive’ than 1st World, that is, it emits 3.9 times as much per unit of GDP. An honest green reason to favor 1st World, particularly in matters of production. It’s in consumption that we can be blamed.)

if both wings piled on, the two would cancel out. Maybe then we’d get something close to objective, honest policy proposals for dealing with the matter. Including lots of research into technologies for producing artificial cooling or global air conditioning, and no more of the Western guilt payments or global equalization stuff. Equality is obviously harmful to ecology, equalization is like destruction of biodiversity and space for experimentation.

As it stands, the ground has been ceded to the Left, and as long as the Left is writing the script, the West is of course expected to end up holding the bag for all the costs.

best,
Ira

Nearly any article Thomas Friedman publishes about the subject will include a reference to the advantages of energy independence from Muslim countries. His articles will usually include a call for non-fossil fuels and 50-cent-per-gallon tax increases on gasoline, a policy that has little effect on Friedman personally as he is an upper income America living in a city with excellent mass transportation. I also notice that he never once addressed global warming when promoting the Iraq war even though such a war woud no doubt result in an increased use of fossil fuels.

Rather, this policy affects the rural poor most severely as they often lack access to public transportation, have lower average incomes, and must drive longer distances.

I don’t know whether the earth is warming or not–it does seem to be–but that doesn’t change the fact that the policy elites are proposing solutions that disproportionately effect lower income Americans.

The debate on global warming isn’t a political debate where if you are Republican you think it’s a Hoax and if you are a DEMOCRATS believe its true. That’s a pretty stupid and silly position to take.

A semantic problem hinders our communication. The word “science” comes down to us from the Latin word “scientia” meaning “demonstrable knowledge.” In my remarks, I attach these semantics to the words “science” and “scientific.”

The philosopher of science Karl Popper translates “demonstrable knowledge” into logical form by stating that no model is “scientific” unless it is “falsifiable.” This signifies that every scientific model can be proved wrong by observations.

The requirement for falsifiability implies that there are models which are not scientific models. Among these, under Trenberth’s testimony, are the IPCC’s models.
Trenberth’s testimony is corroborated by the testimony of a reviewer of the IPCC’s reports,Dr. Vincent Gray, in a posting on the Web.

In my postings on this blog, I’ve sought to warn readers of a mistake that can be made in evaluating the arguments for and against regulation of carbon dioxide emissions. The mistake is to confuse a model built by scientists with a scientific model. By the semantics of “scientific,” a model is scientific if and only if it is falsifiable; whether or not it is built by people with scientific credentials is irrelevant to the issue.

Often, the argument is made that we should believe in the IPCC’s models because a “consensus” of scientists express confidence in them. This is an example of an argument from authority. Under the methodology of science, though, argument from authority is illegitimate. Under the methodology of science, the only legitimate grounds for belief in a predictive model are that this model has been repeatedly tested by observation of independent events and the predicted outcome has matched the observed one in every such event. According to Trenberth and Gray, though, the IPCC models do not make predictions. The conclusions follow that: a) the IPCC’s models are not falsifiable and b) the IPCC’s models are not scientific models.

In the debate over regulation of carbon dioxide emissions, I observe virtually universal confusion of a model built by scientists with a scientific model. This confusion may lead us into a decision on policy that lacks scientific backing but that seems to journalists, businessmen, political leaders, environmentalists and ordinary citizens to possess scientific backing.

By the way, in stating that the IPCC’s models do not make predictions, Dr. Trenberth is not deserving of censure but rather of praise, for he tells a truth and this truth may be contrary to his self-interest. Plenty of other individuals and organizations are deserving of censure. Among the latter is the IPCC.

According to Gray, he provided the IPCC with review comments in which he pointed out that the IPCC’s models did not make predictions, hence were not falsifiable and could not be validated. “Prediction” is a statistical term which designates a proposition stating the outcome of a statistical event.”Validation” is a statistical term which signifies that a model has been repeatedly tested by observation of a number of independent statistical events and the predicted outcome has matched the measured one in every such event. Gray states that he raised the issue of how the IPCC’s models could be tested.

According to Gray, the IPCC responded to his comments by changing the word “prediction” to the word “projection,” and the word “validation” to the word “evaluation.” The IPCC did not respond on the issue of how the IPCC’s models could be tested. The words “projection” and “evaluation” are statistically meaningless in the sense of failing to identify how the associated models can be falsified through testing.

The most recent IPCC Summary for Policy Makers, dated in 2007, implies that policy should be based upon projections of the global average temperatures made by the IPCC’s models. The Summary provides no warning to policy makers that a projection is not the equivalent of a prediction or that the models that make these projections are not scientific models because they cannot be validated. As the IPCC report makes it plain that these models were built by scientists, the content of the IPCC’s report is highly conducive to misleading scientifically naive journalists, politicians and others to the false conclusion that science tells us that carbon dioxide emissions will lead to catastrophic global warming if these emissions are not regulated. Having once believed that the United Nations offered us the best hope for peace on Earth, I am disturbed and dismayed by this evidence of corruption in a UN agency.