SOME "NON-POLITICAL" POSEURS

There is an allegedly "non-political" climate science site here whose authors nonetheless seems thoroughly committed to the "anthropogenic" theory of recent global warming. So are we to conclude therefore that the "anthropogenic" account is what unbiased science supports? Sadly, No. The arguments put forward in various posts on the site are far from careful and dispassionate. For instance, in this post aimed at defending the ACIA study from criticism by Stephen Milloy, the author immediately does the classical Leftist denigration strategy of referring to Stephen Milloy as an "industry lobbyist". I thought he was an independent journalist myself. But in any case, I could with equal justice refer to most of the global warmers as "research-grant-dependant academics" -- implying that they depend on scaring people to get their livelihood. And I do exactly that when I am looking at climate science as a whole. But I never depend on aspersions to make or examine an individual argument. So on balance I suspect that it is our "non-political" author rather than Milloy who is biased. If the author were interested only in the science of the matter, he would not have felt any need to cast personal aspersions on Milloy. And if he had a strong argument, he would not need to bolster it by ad hominem attacks.

And he doesn't have a strong argument. He accuses Milloy of "cherry picking" the ACIA data and then does exactly the same himself to Milloy's data. He completely fails to mention the banner argument Milloy makes -- that the ACIA claims about a dwindling polar bear population are totally contrary to heaps of other evidence on the subject. That good old selective attention to only that data which suits him: Another of the stigmata of Leftist thinking!

And his basis for rejecting Milloy's point about recent Arctic warming being similar to a much earlier Arctic warming episode seems to involve a circular argument if he is claiming that the ACIA study adds to evidence of global warming. He says that the recent Arctic warming is different from the earlier episode because "The recent warming, in contrast, encompasses the entire planet". So he seems seem to be assuming what he has to prove.

And that sort of thing seems to be a strategy in several places elsewhere on the site. If any particular datum is challenged, the reply seems to be something like: "Yes. That data may have problems but we have other data that says the same thing." Such a reply is all very well but it gives no more than a temporary reprieve. It depends for its persuasive power on the other data being impeccable, so simply moves the need for enquiry elsewhere. And a lot of "maybes" or findings that "can be interpreted as..." do not add up to anything like a certainty. And "models" are, of course, just pretentious guesswork.

And as far as I can see, our particular author's assertion that "The recent warming, in contrast, encompasses the entire planet" is false anyway. As he himself later notes, several large polar areas -- such as Greenland and at least a large part of the Antarctic -- are getting cooler. And even within the Arctic itself temperature change is very uneven. There may be some AVERAGE warming globally but "warming that encompasses the entire planet" is certainly not a description of what is going on. And the satellite data even undermine the claim of average warming -- indicating no global warming at all. So proper scientific care and skepticism are notably absent in the post concerned. Impartiality is certainly out to lunch most of the time.

Some caution does seem to reassert itself in their closing paragraph, however. The author admits that local changes such as those in the Arctic do not permit global inferences: "For this reason, an anthropogenic warming trend can only be clearly identified in hemispheric or global averages or in pattern studies. It can neither be demonstrated nor debunked by looking at individual local time series". So when it finally gets cautious, an article that purported to debunk Milloy and support the ACIA study ends up agreeing with Milloy in his view that the ACIA findings are no proof of anything much. What a mess! I have certainly crossed that deceptive site off my "keep track of" list.