Thomas Malloy wrote to the "lone wolf" meteorologist Roy Spencer and was
directed by the reply to his website of "serious articles"
http://www.tcsdaily.com/Authors.aspx?id=267
Mr Spencer further poured scorn on the piece of popular journalism at
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0222-27.htm by saying "I would say that
is the most irresponsible piece of journalism I have ever read on climate
issues"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I say Mr Spencer himself is irresponsible and an (even more than an) idiot.
From his "serious articles" it is all to easy to see that he is not stupid -
he is far more dangerous than that - he is what I call "anti-intelligent".
Just like an anti-matter particle can seriously interfere with the life of a
normal matter particle, so then do anti-intelligent people royally screw
things up. Ordinary people make the mistake of giving equal weight to two
opposing "scientific" views. They assume that the underlying values and
beliefs and assumptions of both can be taken as read to be cool, unbiased
and responsible and wise. This is very often not the case!! An
anti-intelligent person uses their undoubted brain power and education to
come up with ideas and beliefs that are pathological - that tend to hurt
humanity and the ecosphere. They often seem more rational , more calm and
collected and more sensible. Watch out!
This is the intelligent position. Greenhouse gases ARE increasing in the
atmosphere, Physics STATES that this will change the retention of energy
in our atmosphere unless there is some exactly equal balancing effect which
is highly unlikely, has not been mentioned, and it should not be gambled
upon that there is. There are many "feedback loops" that can be identified
(dozens, hundreds, thousands, millions depending on how you define the
categories) some positive, some negative. Depending on which combination of
loops proves to "have the upper hand", the Planet will retain more energy
from the sun causing ultimately disastrous global warming or will stay
exactly the same or we may end up with an ice planet. Warming will almost
certainly modify the feedback loops themselves. Once we are in a period of
unknown climate instability NO-ONE knows or can genuinely predict which way
things will go. Let me shout that again. NOBODY KNOWS WHICH WAY THINGS WILL
GO - NOBODY AT ALL - the basic laws of the universe say NO-ONE KNOWS FOR
CERTAIN. Anybody who disputes these statements is not just an idiot, they
are anti-intelligent. There are very many scientists and environmentalists
who believe in their theories so strongly that they believe they can predict
what will happen, but climate science is all deduction and inference. It is
not now, and never has been, an experimental science, so the hypotheses have
never been any thing like fully tested by any experiment (e.g - let's halve
the concentration of CO2 at the Poles and treble it at the Equator and see
if what happens agrees with our predictions from our hypotheses and our
computer models) and when one is dealing with a primary life support
mechanism for most life on Earth, it is highly irresponsible to accidentally
experiment with (more like monkey with) it, as we are currently doing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Malloy seems to believe that Roy Spencer is "anti" the global warming
hype and thereby appears to believe that this means he is saying there is no
danger, and some of Mr Spencer's writings suggest this but from his own
articles, I have selected a few paragraphs that are hopefully not taken out
of context.
From his "serious" articles
From the first article, paragraph seven <<And in the policy area, it would
be stupid to not do something now about reducing carbon emissions -- if it
were that easy. But I believe that major technological advances are the only
way humanity can substantially reduce carbon emissions in this century. And
as readers of my previous articles here know, I have argued that only the
wealthy countries can afford the R&D to make these advances. So, my
conclusion is, we should not shoot ourselves in the economic foot to gain
reductions equivalent to only, say, 10% in emissions. While this is also
similar to the Bush Administration's position, I have had no influence from
them or anyone else the last 20 years to change what I believe on this
subject.>>
He basically admits that there IS a problem with increasing greenhouse gases
and he is gambling that we will invent technology that will be sufficiently
"major" to do the job in time. All of us here on Vortex are keen on new
energy technology and the clever use of existing technology (c.f. Horace's
monographs on financial incentives, reflective particles etc) but Mr Spencer
ought to realise the enormous "inertia" of the climate and ocean systems. We
cannot wait for something that may not come in time or may not be
sufficiently "major". Gamblers often lose. It is highly irresponsible of
them to take all the rest of us down with them if they lose.
From article 4 , paragraphs 2 and 11
<<Similarly, if indeed global warming turns out to be a real problem, no
rate of increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases is sustainable. Second, the
sustainability argument neglects the proven role of technological advances
that, historically, make sustainability a moot point.>>
<<Just as the deepening horse manure crisis was alleviated by the
introduction of the automobile over a century ago, I suspect that our
current worries over global warming will evaporate in the coming decades. Of
course, it will be in part the concern over global warming that will help to
usher in new energy technologies, and so the tension created by
environmental problems helps to motivate eventual solutions.>>
He knows that greenhouse gases are increasing - he admits that no rate of
increase is sustainable. He finally admits that the hype over the dangers of
global warming " will help usher in new energy technologies" and that "the
tension created by environmental problems helps to motivate eventual
solutions" and yet he consistently tries to calm down the debate and adopts
an "it won't be as bad as people make out" stance, even though, as I proved
above, he CANNOT KNOW THIS IN ADVANCE for sure. His effect then is to lull
readers into a false sense of more security than is warranted and he
consistently tries to defuse the "tension" that he admits will usher in the
technologies that he is relying upon to come over the hill, like the US
cavalry, and save us all.
Is this man not one of the most irresponsible people you can imagine?
Nick Palmer
