S O U N D   O F F

August 18, 2010

Dear Gordon,

As you probably know, I try to write articles to educate the average open-minded citizen.
It has increasingly become a concern of mine that this whole business of Global Warming (AGW) has taken over our political process (e.g. government support for such items as wind energy) — yet typical citizens (and most politicians and most of the media) are clueless as to what the full AGW hypothesis really is.
I'd like try to address that significant deficiency, and would appreciate your input as a knowledgeable person.
My thought is to start with a definition of AGW — but one that includes ALL of the imbedded assumptions and beliefs. Without these being identified, we end up with something trivial like "people are causing the planet to get warmer". Of course, just by our being alive, we give off energy and thus cause the planet to get warmer. So what?
In any case I have dialogued with many pro-AGW parties, and have tried to ferret out their underlying (often unstated) assumptions.
Below is my current list. I'd appreciate your comments on it as to additions, deletions, modifications, etc.
Remember, these are not my beliefs, but are a collection of those promoting AGW.
Thank you very much for your insights.

regards, john droz, jr.
physicist & environmental advocate

AGW proponents have the following stated or imbedded technical and economic beliefs:
1) We currently have the ability to measure and report on an average annual global temperature to .01 degree Celsius

2) We have the ability to empirically calculate the average annual global temperature, with this same degree of accuracy, over the last few thousand years

3) Based on the data from #1 & #2, the earth has recently (100± years) been warming

4) Based on historical records (#2), the earth is warming to an unusually high degree

5) This increase (in the last 100 years) has been .74± degrees Celsius

6) Assuming business as usual, this warming will continue (or increase) for the foreseeable future

7) This warming will soon have profound negative environmental and economic consequences to all of the earth’s inhabitants

8) The mechanics of the earth’s recent warming are essentially entirely explained by the Greenhouse Gas theory

9) CO2 increases is the primary greenhouse gas driver that explains earth’s recent warming

10) That 350 PPM of CO2 is a critical concentration that we should not exceed

11) Other greenhouse gasses (e.g. water vapor) are discounted as consequential causes of recent warming

12) Most CO2 increases are man-made

13) The fact that we don’t understand a significant amount about CO2 sinks has been deemed to be irrelevant.

14) The solution of restricting man-made CO2 has passed an objective cost-benefits analysis

15) That proprietary computer models produce results equivalent to empirical testing

Dear John,

Your list of the assumptions and beliefs that underlie AGW is fairly complete as to their "evidence" but needs to address the Warmers implicit logic also.
Alarmists take a fundamentally authoritarian view of science, where truth is defined to be what comes from those in the highest positions of authority. For instance, Ralph J. Cicerone, PhD must be among the highest scientific authorities on the planet, because he is the President of the US National Academy of Sciences. That conveys an almost God-like quality to his official pronouncements in favor of Global Warming. (Never mind that he isn't even a scientist but an electrical engineer.) According to Wikipedia (which thoroughly subscribes to AGW):
"The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a corporation in the United States whose members serve pro bono as 'advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine.'"
In other words, the NAS serves the nation for free without conflicts of interest or political perspectives. It is "as pure as the driven snow." (Never mind that they accepted $ 6M from Congress to produce their latest treatise supporting Anthropogenic Global Warming.)
To reconcile the authoritarian view with our democratic political principles, Alarmists point out that the authorities got where they are by (almost) universal acclamation from members of their societies. I was told by a rabid newspaper editor here in Oregon that I needed to get in line with the 57,000 member American Geophysical Union. That many scientists cannot be wrong! (Never mind that these scientists have never voted to approve AGW and votes have no meaning in science anyway.)
Another fundamental belief involves use of evidence. Any anecdotal evidence is fine if it supports the paradigm. Evidence of warming is evidence of climate; evidence of cooling is just evidence of weather. Given a choice between natural or anthropogenic attributions, anthropogenic wins every time. If we measure something new that we have never seen before, it must have just occurred. There is no possibility that it was always there and part of the natural realm.
Still another fundamental belief involves the ability of Alarmists to predict the future or the past. If their computer codes can "back-predict" the global climate, they have been certified. (Never mind that the argument is circular because the codes have been designed to match historical records.) If Alarmists can vaguely predict "climate change" or extreme weather, their anthropogenic theory must be correct. (Never mind that these have occurred on this planet since the beginning of time.)
Faulty logic is as significant or more so than faulty evidence.

Gordon J. Fulks, PhD
Corbett, Oregon USA
P.S. Alarmists also regularly cite "evidence" of steadily rising sea levels, steadily rising ocean heat content, steadily melting glaciers, and steadily shrinking polar sea ice. None of these come close to being true.

Roni:
You have my permission to post this, as long as you include the whole story about the fact that this is a draft version and I am looking for constructive improvements on it. People can contact me at "aaprjohn@northnet.org".
regards, john droz, jr.