Example 2 - Global Warming

From The Skeptic

I can’t resist putting my 2 cents in, so let me give you the point of view of a project manager (oh! was that an appeal to authority?):

First of all, before entering any conversation about global warming it must be divided into two distinct topics that invariably get perpetually mixed up:

1)The science

2)The political agenda

I too am disappointed at The Skeptic, I thought we would see here an analysis of the global warming topic from a rational skeptic’s point of view, with maybe the socratic method or the scientific method being applied. Instead we see a wholesale campaign trying once again to sell us the ‘demon’ man-made carbon as the sole perpetrator, just because it’s the only one in the room - guilty by implication and nothing else, “so the only candidate for the post-1940 warming has to be carbon dioxide...”

But before we even enter the room — we are forced to accept the framework of the AGW proponents:

1) Global warming is bad, i.e. a rise in mean global temperatures is a bad thing — not desirable. Here is why I don’t accept that.

2) Global warming is caused/driven by manmade Carbon i.e. CO2 is not a byproduct or effect of warming but the sole(?)cause -- totally impervious to the effects of 'natural' or non-manmade CO2 that is also in the atmosphere.

3) Sea Levels rising is also a bad thing — not desirable.

4) There is a ‘tipping point’ i.e. a point of no return where a critical level of CO2 will cause runaway unstoppable global warming in an endzeit syndrome of Hollywood planet destroying proportions.

I’m sorry, but I don’t accept that framework at all, the AGW crowd is trying to put us all in a box that doesn’t exist.  For one, when us ‘non-scientists’ are forced to make a choice, hopefully, we look at all scientists and opinions — because I don’t want my project to fail, and I couldn’t care less if you have a degree from so and so university, before I invest my people’s time and budget on a project there has to be a proven added value, a monitoring and controlling mechanism, risk mitigation plan, etc. etc. In the case of man-made carbon the causal link has not been proven. As a matter of fact, the scientists admit they do not understand where all the carbon is going [NG link missing carbon]

Besides that, for every expert from a posch, high-brow university that supports the agenda, there is also one that does not. My favorite is Freeman Dyson, he is as close as you can get to a living Einstein, and he says the AGW agenda is a bunch of poppy-cock [link to his heretics].

As a leader, and especially a leader with a budget of other people’s money we must constantly be aware of Motivated-Reasoning, Illusory Correlation, and all Logical Fallacies, in other people and especially in ourselves.

It seems, and Prothero’s example above is a perfect example thereof, that the climatologists have entered the realm of Astrology and become the pseudo-scientists of our age. Just like the astrologers of old, they too were scientists, and they too observed scientifically proven facts, then they tried to predict the future. This is where the Climatologists and Astrologers failed miserably. It seems in order to save face, (after all they did make predictions,) they must move the goal posts.[link to fallacy]

Science is asking questions, not interpreting data to fit an agenda.

All I have seen from the AGW crowd is Illusory correlation, The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, Motivated Reasoning and the entire plethora of Cognitive Biases.

For example:

The antarctic ice is growing[link], however this is never offered or shown, instead when confronted with this it is dismissed as a ‘mystery’ exactly like in the case of the missing carbon. However the shrinking north pole is offered as concrete bona fide proof of global warming and by implication man-made carbon ... of course.  We have been hit over the head with the Hockey-stick graph for the last 15+ years as ‘proof’, however, at present the CO2 ppm is still rising but the mean temperature is leveling out or even going down. When confronted with this fact the AGW proponent flees to motivated reasoning; “don’t look there, look here, the arctic ice caps etc.”. This is a textbook example of motivated reasoning, just like when you confront your friend who believes in Astrology with an example of a person that does not fit the archetype, they will invariably say, “well then you have to look at the ascendant, or moon.” Get it? “Don’t look there, look here,” textbook motivated reasoning!

But I have a totally different suggestion:

Let’s assume the science is a given, yes, a lot of the scientists have received unwarranted flak.  Let’s just take AGW at face value and run with it, well that brings me to the second part — 2) the political agenda known as ‘Global Warming’.

You see dear scientists, the politicians have already taken the ball from you and run with it. While we are all back here at the 20 yard line, splitting hairs about the data, the politicians have already advanced to the endzone — with our money. Based on faulty,  and emotional laden pre-interpreted science, the politicians have used you to start a project with absolutely no known added value, no measurable effect, no risk mitigation, and no stake-holders meeting. You have been prostituted. This is what I call a truly evil project.

We have to stop debating the scientists now, and start holding the politicians accountable for the already started project.

After the last IPCC convention in Doha [link] there has now been put in place an international transfer mechanism. It is still waiting to be funded, and I hope it will never be funded, at least not with my money. You see the IPCC and the politicians have taken AGW away from the scientists and environmentalists and people who really do care about the planet, and have given it to the global communists or wealth transfer specialists or whatever you want to call them ... the lawyers(!).

 This is what is killing your agenda. If you want to piss off Joe American, the easiest and quickest way is to raise taxes.  And that’s all the politicians have done in this case, raised taxes a.k.a. stealing, and offered no measurable result for our money.  A company that wanted to survive would cancel this project immediately, yea, it would have never been funded. But as usual the politicians saw a golden opportunity to make more revenue for themselves.

My advice to globalists and tree-huggers:

1) Rename the project to something like ‘let’s pollute less’.

Nobody has a problem with that.

2) Always separate the agenda from the science. It’s the agenda and the new taxes that piss people off, not the science.

3) Offer  a refund of the taxes if there are no measurable results.  Nobody wants to ‘throw their money at a problem’, especially one that is proving itself to be a black hole. Until you offer a measurable result for our tax money, your AGW movement is nothing but a feel-good industry which does nothing but line Al Gore’s pockets.  No one funds a project without any kind of KPI’s or Risk-mitigation plan for the stakeholders.

4) Offer solutions that do not or cannot be morphed into new taxes by the politicians. I am totally convinced that this is a wicked problem[LINK], and if there is a solution, it will NOT come from the politicians, it will not come from the top down at all, it will be a grassroots effort supported by companies. Companies like VW who are making unbelievably efficient hybrid cars [link] just for one example.

And finally, when forced to choose, with the available evidence and the reigning belief-system, I choose to believe the most rational sounding (I know, this is purely subjective on my part) scientist, and in this case it is Freeman Dyson.