A society that can no longer rely on the wisdom of science can only be governed by irrationality and fear - Rated 
So concludes Professor Michaels at the end of this book of 246 pages (excluding references), of which only 15 are given over to his hypothesis, and just five to his recommendations as to what to do about it. The first 219 pages are devoted to exposing the scientific imprecision, and the political and media exaggeration based on that imprecision, on which his hypothesis is based. If I have any complaint, it is that these proportions are out of balance, and that it is rather longer than it needed to be.
Michaels' hypothesis is in fact the restatement, updating and specific application (to global warming theory) of an earlier one - that of Thomas Kuhn, who published "The structure of scientific revolutions" back in 1962. Kuhn defined a paradigm as a body of knowledge that defined the problems and methods of research for succeeding generations of practitioners. The problem, Kuhn and Michaels argue, is that paradigms become self-referential: they solve the problems defined by their creators as being most acute, presumably ignoring other issues, they bring together people of a like mind, and once a scientist has begun to subscribe to a particular paradigm he or she will probably do so for the rest of his or her life. The concept of a scientific paradigm is worsened, Michaels argues, by the effect of the state funding of science (since WW2).
Michaels, who is a climatologist and "environmental" scientist, argues that man-made global warming, and that it is out of control, has, since the 1980s, become the prevailing paradigm (or as the IPCC calls it, the "consensus") and in so doing has made it more and more difficult for those who believe differently. The first 219 pages, needless to say, pick holes in the flawed science of those scientists who are working to demonstrate the validity of the paradigm and the exaggerations of politicians and publications that support it. He does so in a humorous and, to my mind, credible way, although whether you will agree will depend rather on what your own paradigm is! Chapters focus on icecaps, hurricanes, droughts and floods, disease. He is highly critical of lapses in what ought to be basic peer-review in major scientific journals.
Michaels has three recommendations; while these are written in the American context, they probably hold true in the UK and Europe as well:
1. To break the government monopoly of the funding of science - and so to eliminate the problem of such funding being devoted exclusively in support of one paradigm or another.
2. To change the peer-review structure, by requiring that reviewers' names, and a synopsis of their views, are stated on published papers.
3. To abolish academic tenure - i.e. the security of employment that academics may receive after a few years
This book is published by the Cato Institute - a libertarian organisation based in the US. Michaels is himself, in all probability - a libertarian - i.e. he believes in making markets as free as possible, and in reducing the role of governments as far as possible. Not everyone will find that a comfortable concept, irrespective of their understanding of global warming, but I would have thought that everyone could agree to his second proposal - "peer-review" is a much hallowed phrase of the AGW lobby!
Is Prof Michaels a global warming "denier" as such? This is the paradigm that he supports:
"The earth's surface temperature is influenced by human activity, and changes that are being measured today are largely consequences of that activity. We know, to a very small range of error, the amount of future climate change for the foreseeable future, and it is a modest value to which humans have adapted and will continue to adapt. There is no known, feasible policy that can stop or even slow these changes in a fashion that could be scientifically measured."
My reading of the rest of the book is that he thinks that human activity may, at worst, be having a small effect on the climate, but that it is not large. I do recommend that you read this book. I shall have to turn my attention to Thomas Kuhn!
Science of Global warming and how the Media play along - Rated
It's easy to believe all you are told.
It's easy to accept the herds view on life.
Not so easy to ignore all that perceived wisdom and go out on a limb, risk your career and produce a book that is so well balanced its hard to know how anyone could object.
The facts are plane and simple, man made CO2 might make a difference but stacked up against all evidence for the contrary it's hard to understand how this immense distortion ever got started let alone how it got to the ludicrous state it is in now.
It may go against your instinct but that instinct has been manipulated to believe what sells and that story certainly isn't `Manmade global warming an illusion'.
Read if you have a half open mind.
examine this carefully - Rated 
and you will see how flimsy it really is. The petition is completely flawed and not comparable the IPCC report. There is no easy way to audit the signatories and very few of them have any expertise climate science.
The consensus of scientists is not limited to IPCC. Try to find GW scpetical papers in major science journals and publications and you will find there are few if any.
Remember also that this book is 4 years old plenty more data of continuing warming has rolled in since then. Climate models have been refined. Even big businesses are waking up to the reality of climate change.
Please think!! What "Consensus"?! - Rated
I do not deny the damage we are doing to the earth in many areas and the need for change, but we must be careful not to be reactionary and must look at things beyond face/media value!
The views expressed in this book are not the views of a lone crackpot or sleeze in the pocket of the oil industries, they are shared by well over 19,000 scientists worldwide:
Over 19,000 scientists - at least half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry - signed The Oregon Institute petition, which says:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the
foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate
The UN/IPCC so called "consensus" (many scientists asking for their names to be removed), claiming that CO2 is a major cause of climate change and that we are headed for catastrophy, not signed, but carrying the names of:
Only 2500+ scientific expert reviewers (again, many asking for their names to be removed).
So based on these statistics, you can see that 7 and a half times more scientists are putting their names behind refuting the so called "consensus" that Co2 and other greenhaouse gases are causing climate change - and that's not to mention the fence sitters.
Why would the US government, in many places linked to the Oil barons, be
putting forward the idea that Oil is bad? Well, what outcomes of the this
climate scare could be desirable to them?:
More tax on Oil?
More reason to bring in international law, to force people to "be responsible" - international law being the first steps towards the centralisation of global power.
If you do some research into the supression of alternative energies by the oil barons and governments (check out 'Who Killed the Electric Car' DVD for a start and also 'The Race to Zero Point' VHS), you will wonder why if there is such a crisis with CO2 is the answer not to focus on existing, tried and tested but supressed alternatives? Rather than jack up the price of oil and still keep the alternatives undeveloped! Yes we must change, but firstly we must realise our situation and take control of our lives and our future, rather than being spoon fed this controlled and false reality.
Regarding W. Bucklands review and comments on Cato, the publishers, I don't know where he got his information on them being funded by the oil companies (perhaps some small donations where made to confuse matters, to muddy the waters) but I found no evidence of that. Here's what I read:
Cato scholars have been sharply critical of the Bush administration on a wide variety of issues, including the Iraq war, civil liberties, and excessive government spending.
Cato President Ed Crane has particular scorn for neoconservatism. Cato's foreign policy team have frequently criticized neoconservative foreign policy
In order to maintain its independence, the Cato Institute accepts no government funding. Cato receives approximately 75 percent of its funding from individuals, with lesser amounts coming from foundations, corporations, and the sale of publications. The Cato Institute is a nonprofit, tax-exempt educational foundation under Section 501(c) 3 of the Internal Revenue Code
Fact based and compelling reason for doubting the consensus on global warming - Rated
Well written, clearly argued and fact based.
Unlike the critics comments herein which usually try and claim links to oil companies and use this to rubbish the science. Given that 75% of the money Cato receive is from individuals this would seem an odd attack.
Great scientific progress has relied on independent thinkers challenging the status quo. Large monolithic government funded programms are usually immersed in the political process and the incentives are as far away from establishing the truth as one can imagine. To the niave individuals here who say "trust the government funded climatologists", perhaps they remember the government scientists who said "beef is safe, BSE cant be transmitted to humans", or "petrol will run out by the turn of the century" or "we are entering a new ice age". And on. And on.
Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. However, when science becomes a "consensus" and people who challenge this consensus are shouted down rather than engaged in rational debate - then be wary. Emotion produces bad science, and the emotional knocking response of the critics here sums up quite well why you should read this book so that you have the facts to make up your own mind.
|
