[Vision2020] Greenspan, Einstein, Reich & Dale Courtney right-mind.us Skeptics On Global Warming/Climate Change

[Ted Moffett]

Dale Courtney and some of his right-mind.us commentators might get a clue
from the content referred to below, from Realclimate.org, given the
peculiarly certain implications on right-mind.us that human activity is not
radically altering climate, despite the consensus of numerous credible
scientific organizations, that subject their public pronouncements to
rigorous peer review, that indeed it is very likely that human activity is
altering climate.

How can the skeptic's position on climate change be *so* *certain, *doubting
anthropogenic impacts?  Would not the skeptic's position be that we do not
know for certain whether or not human activity is radically altering
climate, that indeed human activity might be radically altering climate (or
maybe not), given the evidence of climate science, rather than claiming with
a high degree of certainty this claim is false?

This point highlights what is a disingenuous inconsistent application of
intellectual tools in the world of religious fundamentalism, often
a ideologicall/political focal point for a skeptical view of anthropogenic
climate change: this Weltanschung sometimes refuses to admit to credible
uncertainty when it suits its purpose, but will apply the most exacting and
rigorous standards of skepticism when desired.  Thoroughgoing and unbiased
skepticism toward the foundations of knowledge, whether of science, ethics
or theology, is eschewed for a cherry-picking of what issues will or will
not be subjected to exacting skepticism: One God as creator of the universe,
sometimes described as a "Trinity," certain; Jesus raised from the dead, as
Savior, certain; the Bible as literal word of God, certain; human impacts on
climate change, left wing hoax (despite the hard scientific evidence
otherwise):

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/10/greenspan-einstein-and-reich/#more-609

 29 October 2008 Greenspan, Einstein, and Reich Filed under:

   - Communicating
Climate<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/communicating-climate/>
   - skeptics<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/communicating-climate/skeptics/>

— eric @ 5:54 PM

With the remarkable admission by Alan Greenspan that his "theory" of
economics had a fundamental flaw, I've been musing about all those emails I
get from people claiming to have found a "fundamental flaw" in the
"greenhouse theory". The letters range from amusing claims that we are
overlooking changes in the magnetic field, to tales about how the "weight"
of carbon dioxide keeps it "near the ground". If the writer sounds serious,
then I treat them seriously, and do my best to provide a helpful reply.
Often, though, I find myself in a pointless debate of the most basic,
well-established physical principles. I generally cut off the discussion at
this point, because I simply don't have the time. This can result in a
hostile response accusing me of "having an agenda". Most would call me naïve
for bothering to respond in the first place.

But it is possible, after all, that somewhere in that barrage of letters
lies a brilliant idea that ought to be heard, and could change the course of
scientific history. How to tell the difference? Well, there is a story that
we tell in our family that might provide some perspective on this.

The story is about Wilhelm Reich, the controversial Freudian psychoanalyist
(1897-1957). Reich was a personal acquaintance of my great uncle, William
Steig, creator of *Shrek* <http://www.williamsteig.com/shrek_fr.htm>, and
illustrator of ones of Reich's books. Reich thought he had made a major
discovery in physics that proved the existence of a previously unrecognized
form of energy, which he called "orgone energy". He had built an "orgone
energy accumulator" (basically a box whose walls were comprised of
alternating layers of organic material and metal). He had done some careful
experiments that demonstrated that the temperature inside the box increased
above the ambient outside temperature. He made calculations that (he
thought) demonstrated that the increase was greater than could be explained
by thermodynamics, thereby proving the existence of an extra source of heat,
which he attributed to the mysterious "orgone energy". He sent these
calculations to Albert Einstein, who graciously wrote back to him, showing
where his calculations were wrong. Reich then wrote again, allegedly showing
where Einstein had made an error. Einstein never wrote back. Some in my
family took this as evidence that Einstein was stumped. But most people
would conclude that Einstein decided he had better things to do than
continue an argument that wasn't going anywhere. This story has all the more
poignancy to my family because my grandfather Henry, William's brother, died
of cancer while trying to cure himself by sitting in an orgone accumulator.
I don't of course, believe that Wilhelm Reich is responsible for my
grandfather's death. But clearly, Reich was wrong, and Einstein was right.

"But wait a minute," you might say. "You guys at RealClimate are no Albert
Einstein." True enough. But like Einstein, we're constantly subject to
criticism from our fellow scientists. That's what the process of peer
review<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/04/blogs-and-peer-review>is
all about. It's not a perfect process, but it does provide an
efficient
means to separate ideas that have traction from ideas that are going
nowhere. Greenspan's pronouncements about the economy, on the other hand,
were not subject to any such process. There might be a lesson in that.

------------------------------------------

Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081101/823890b1/attachment-0001.html