SGU Episode 12

This episode is in the middle of being transcribed by user name (talk) as of {{{date}}}. To help avoid duplication, please do not transcribe this episode while this message is displayed.

This episode needs: proofreading, formatting, links, 'Today I Learned' list, segment redirects. Please help out by contributing!

How to Contribute

SGU Episode 11
7th September 2005
(brief caption for the episode icon)
SGU 11                      SGU 13
Skeptical Rogues
S: Steven Novella
B: Bob Novella
E: Evan Bernstein
P: Perry DeAngelis
Guest
SM: Steve Milloy
Links
Download Podcast
SGU Podcast archive
SGU Forum

Introduction

S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. This is your host, Steven Novella. Today is Wednesday, September 7^th 2005. With me tonight are Evan Bernstein...

E: Good evening all.

S: Bob Novella...

B: Hello.

S: And Perry DeAngelis.

P: Hello.

S: Our guest for tonight is Steven Milloy who is the publisher of junkscience.com. He'll be joining us in just a few minutes, but first a couple of quick segments.

News Items

Haunted Phone on eBay (0:34)

S: Some follow up on some previous items that we discussed. You guys all remember the haunted dolls for sale on eBay.

B: Yes.

S: Well, a listener...

E: I did, yes.

S: a listener sent me a link for a haunted phone for sale on eBay.

B: Cool.

S: The link will be on our website but it's a–the–essentially a red rotary phone like a 1950's 60's model telephone...

E: Mm hmm.

S: and a long, long story to go along with the item. Apparently, it's very sinister looking cause it's red and it has the number on it is number 666 and it was inspected by inspector number 666.

E: (laughter)

B: Well, there ya go.

S: And the usual stories. "I left it on the table and the next thing I know it was somewhere else," or, "the statue of the virgin Mary I had next to it was found broken on the floor."

E: Isn't this a Twilight Zone episode?

S: Right.

E: It was haunted phone or something.

S: The worst though was–the worst was the seller claimed that at one point in time there was a burn mark all around the phone as if something had–like there was a radiation of heat. The phone itself was pristine but the table all around the burn mark on it.

E: So it's kind of like a spontaneous telephonic combustion type of thing.

S: Telephonic combustion. Although the phone itself didn't combust. It kind of reminded me of that scene from Raiders of the Lost Arc. Where there–they–the Nazi symbol on the crate just sort of burned, but the–if you look at the picture the burn outline of the phone is not quite perfect, you know what I mean? It doesn't exactly follow the edge of the phone on the table.

P: Are you questioning this evidence, Steve?

E: Like it was man made.

S: Right. Like, so like it was created around the phone, rather than–cause if you–any kind of radiation that's blocked by an object should produce a pretty perfect silhouette on the item behind it, and this was–I'll just say it was less than perfect. But it was going–the bid was going for, I think, eighty dollars or something.

B: Is it still up for auction, Steve?

S: No, the auction had completed. So, yeah, interesting that there–there–haunted items are branching out eBay. This one was, I thought, particularly humorous. It was kinda cheesy. A red phone with the number 666 on it. A demon phone.

B: Wow.

Volcanoes in the Solar System (2:58)

S: Also, a bit of follow up from–before we go–before we proceed with Science or Fiction I have a follow up from the last Science or Fiction from two weeks ago. If you recall this was–the theme was the solar system and the item which was made up was the discovery of an active volcano on Saturn's moon, Titan.

E: (laughter) I know where you're going with this.

S: So, I did some more research just to see if there's anything else out there that I may have missed and it turns out–a couple–a few things came up. So I had claimed that the only active volcanoes in the solar system are on Earth and on Jupiter's moon, Io, because Jupiter's moon, Io, is close–is close enough to the planet that the tidal forces of Jupiter actually push and pull and stretch Io so that it's constantly molten and there's active volcanos and the planets basically turning itself inside out. Well, Saturn's smallest moon, En-cel-a-dus, also has active volcanoes on it. And–or En-cel-a-dus, I think it might be En-cel-a-dus. Although, these volcano–it also is close to the Saturn and it's tidal forces that it's thought to be the driving force behind the volcanoes. However the volcan–quote unquote "volcanoes" are spewing ice...

E: Wow.

S: Cause Enceladus is an icy world. So, not exactly, lava, but spewing essentially ice and there is a wispy sort of atmosphere around Enceladus which is I guess...

B: Well, that's bizarre.

S: Yeah.

B: I mean, if you've got the tidal forces you'd think it would–it would liquify–it would create molten–molten rock or ore and it would just spew that. So how could you–how could you...

S: That moon is probably mostly water and ice like Europa or Ganymede. At least, towards the surface.

B: That just seems pretty bizarre.

S: There was another report of Neptune's largest moon, Triton was found to have what one astronomer called a volcano but the other references I said referred to them as nitrogen geysers. So, not volcanic, again not lava, not mountainous volcanos but geysers of nitrogen. And then finally, now this is just from a few–a couple of months ago and the report that I read is from July so this is very recent. The Cassini Probe has indeed found pictures of what looks like a volcano on Titan.

E: Mm Hmm.

S: Which was the specific example that I had used in the Science or Fiction. However, there's no direct evidence of an eruption. That is–so there's no picture of it erupting.

P: So what's the bottom line, here, Steve?

S: But there's indirect evidence that it may be spewing forth ice and ammonia. So you may have ice and ammonia volcanoes on Titan.

B: So this invalidates your whole Science or Fiction from...

S: Welll...

E: Is that what you're saying?

P: (inaudible)

S: I said there were–it's ambiguous at this point. There are volcanic structures on Titan that may be–there's indirect evidence that may be spewing ice and ammonia. Not lava volcanoes. Nothing like that.

B: Right.

P: Alright. So we can just go back and say that we were all correct.

E: (laughter)

S: If you wish. (laughter) If that makes you feel better.

P: (inaudible)

S: This story was just more complicated. I just–I found some additional information.

P: And feeble. Very good.

E: It looks like they need new ways to classify volcanic phenomena.

B: Mm hmm.

S: Right.

E: I mean, is it a–lava's one kind, ice is another...

S: Ammonia, nitrogen...

E: Right.

S: sulfur. All kinds of things. And what's–When's a geyser and a volcano?

B: Right.

E: We need some volcanologists. Maybe we can call one on the show and have them clarify for us.

B: I wonder if you need the strong tidal forces to create a nitrogen volcano or a nitrogen geyser. Do you need tidal stresses to do that or can some other mechanism produce that?

S: That was the only one that I heard. I mean, so–you either have heat left over from your formation–internal head, or–or there's gotta be something that's producing heat and other that tidal forces I'm not sure what else would do that.

B: Well, don't forget radioactive decay. I mean that's...

S: Yeah, that's true.

B: That's the main reason our core is molten.

S: We haven't cooled off yet.

B: Right.

S: Right.

Science or Fiction (7:17)

VO: It's time to play Science OR Fiction.

S: So, this week's Science or Fiction is going to be a little different than previous ones. It's still three items. One item is the correct answer, but it's more a multiple choice question than two legitimate one being fiction. What I'm going to give you is three classic pseudosciences. The question is, this is a historical question about these pseudosciences, which one had proponents that were actually on the correct side of a major scientific debate. So this–my theme for the week is, "Right for the Wrong Reason".

E: Hmm.

S: Which pseudoscientists, if you will, historically were on the correct side of a major scientific debate, even though, of course, their underlying belief system is still false and pseudoscientific. You ready? Do you understand the question?

E: Yes.

P: So some guy believes that the earth is round cause a big monkey bent it around.

S: Right. Correct.

P: Okay. I got it.

B: Well, I assume it's not going to be obvious. If you tell us something that he believed the we know is true...

S: I'm not telling you what the belief was, cause that would be too obvious. I'm just telling you...

B: Okay.

S: one word. I'm going to give you three pseudosciences. You tell me historically, which one of those three was actually on the correct side of a major scientific debate and then I'll tell you at the end what the major scientific debate was.

E: Okay.

S: Okay. Ready?

E: Ready.

S: The first one is astrology. The second one is phrenology. And the third one is homeopathy. All three pseudosciences with which we are very familiar.

B: Right, but they–these are definite pseudosciences, but you're saying someone in the past supported this–supported one of these phenomena?

S: Some major proponents of either astrology, phrenology, or homeopathy were actually on the correct side of a scientific debate. They were proven correct over time on one point that was integral to their belief system.

B: Okay.

E: But it didn't validate any of the pseudosciences in the process, right?

S: No. Everything else was still turned out to be wrong. Didn't validate the under–the bottom line pseudoscience.

B: Right. Just some subtle point...

S: Well, it's was so subtle. It was a major component of their belief system.

E: Boy, I'm tending towards the astrology one.

P: I say phrenology. Bumps on the head. I think... (inaudible)

E: Go on, Bob, take homeopathy.

B: No. No. I'm taking phrenology as well.

S: Okay.

P: Yeah. I think it's phrenology.

S: Two phrenology and Evan for astrology. Evan, what do you think–what's your thinking there?

E: Eh, because it–respectively, I believe, where the roots of astronomy did derive from, if I'm not mistaken. Was something closer to astrology, as we recognize it today, it just has a deeper history than, I think, either phrenology or homeopathy have, which are, by comparison, more–much more recent phenomenon. So, perhaps there was a lot more time there for the astrologers to have stumbled across something correct in regards to astronomy and so, that's why I'm going to guess that.

S: Okay. Perry, what's your thinking with phrenology?

P: Oh, just that since it involves the head it's–and bumps on the head it's probably not too far of leap to think that they came up with something regarding brain–the nervous system. Something medical. That was reasonable in a dark age. That's what I believe.

S: Bob, similar? Do you have anything more specific?

B: Yeah. This week's is a little different in that you can't–you can't use general critical thinking and scientific knowledge to divine an answer. You kind of–it looks like you're asking for a specific knowledge of something...

S: Yeah.

B: that you really need to make an answer. More so than usual. But for–I'm going for...

S: This is more of a fund of knowledge question than a logic question.

B: Right. Well, I'm going with phrenology because I know that phrenology when it was first developed–when it was first being looked into and believed it–there was a happy side effect. Because people were so into phrenology and examined bumps in the head it actually created much more interest in–in the brain and the structure of the brain and different parts of neuroscience than was warranted at the time. So they actually had a nice increase in scientific knowledge that they wouldn't necessarily have had until maybe many decades later, all caused by phrenology which, of course, is ridiculous.

P: Right. Then–different bumps meant different things like different parts of the brain affect different things. Stuff like that.

S: Right. Right.

P: I mean that sort of a connection.

S: Well phrenology is the correct answer. And, Perry, you're very, very–you're very–basically on target with your analysis. The major scientific debate was whether or not the different functions of the brain were diffuse or compartmentalized. In other words, does everything that the brain does, you know, memory, motor function, vision, calculation, remembering music, identifying objects, are those functions distributed throughout the brain, sort of, evenly, or is there one piece of the brain that has a specific function. Is this piece of the brain the motor function, this piece of the brain vision? The phrenologists were–supported the side of that debate that said that the brain was compartmentalized and specialized. However, there was a major part of the medical scientific neurological community that said that neurological brain function was diffuse. It turns out that the phrenologists were right. They were on the correct side of that debate. Of course, all of the other components of their claim, that if you use a certain part of the brain, like if you use the music part of your brain that that part of the brain would grow bigger and would push the skull out therefore creating a bump over the music part of the brain, that part is all incorrect. The brain does not actually change it's size based upon usage, like a muscle does. That was their analogy. It was sort of a false analogy to a muscle. Neither does the skull move out of the way of the brain. The brain's like jello. The skull pushes the brain into it's shape. The brain does not push the skull into the brain's shape.

P: Doesn't it get more crinkly, though, Steve?

S: No. I mean, the brain's as crinkly as it is. That's a matter of...

B: Because the skull.

S: No. That's not really true. I mean the brain just develops that way and all the folds–the gyri and sulci in the brain are formed that way because it's genetically programmed to form that way.

B: Well, look at the strapping the certain cultures do of the head. The skull is so malleable at an early age. You could shape your head into pretty much anything you want it to look like. And, of course, the brain just blindly takes it stride with no apparent deficits.

S: The brain happily conforms to whatever shape your skull is.

B: Yeah, whatever the container is. It's just–the brain just kind of, changes shape.

E: I'm informed...

B: Steve, I thought I was somewhat on track with the fact that phrenology caused more...

S: I'm not sure that's even true, Bob. I've never read that in all of my reading about the history of neurology or phrenology that...

B: Do you want me to get a source?

S: Yeah, sure. I mean, it may be true I just–I never have encountered that claim so I don't know if it's true or not. There was quite an interest in neurology without phrenology and that debate was raging without the phrenologists, as well. The phrenologists were major players in that debate, two hundred and fifty three hundred years ago.

E: Well, my astrologer is advising me to not engage into this debate. So, I'll remain silent.

S: Evan, your reasoning was sound. I mean, astrology certainly is much, much older than either phrenology, which is about–or homeopathy, both of which are two to three hundred years old. But astrology didn't–astrologer–ancient astrologers, they had a very prescientific view of the universe, of the stars and the planets and they did not–they were not on the correct side of...

E: Ah, it seemed likely that they made a guess about something that was going on in the cosmos that they happened to stumble upon. It just seemed–seemed like a reasonable...

S: Reasonable logic but I think historically just not correct.

P: Homeopathy was easy to get rid of because...

E: Oh yeah.

P: anyone who believes in homeopathy couldn't possibly be correct about anything.

S: Right. There's nothing.

E: (laughter)

S: There's no component of their–homeopathy is using substances diluted to the point of, literally, non-existence and...

P: The law of infinitesimals is so juvenile...

S: It's prescientific.

P: as to not to be believed.

B: Right. Suprisingly, though, there was–there was a happy side effect with homeopathy, way back, in that you were much better off drinking pure water than...

E: That's right.

B: blood letting.

P: (laughter)

S: Yeah.

E: Or some other medicine they tried to shove into you, at the time, which would definitely kill you.

S: At the time there were experimenting with a lot of toxic minerals as–or drugs and they were all more harmful than good so again, going from the medicine of the time to nothing, to basically water, was actually an advantage.

P: I understand leeches are making a comeback.

S: Leeches. (laughter)

P: They are.

E: Where?

S: No, I understand that's true.

E: Where?

P: They are. They apparently are.

E: In Yale, Steve? Are they using them in Yale?

S: Not that I've ever encountered.

P?: Draining...

B: Don't they feed on necrotic tissues and things like that? Bacteria...

P: Yeah. They really are. That's a...

S: Well, those are maggots, Bob. They're–sometimes they will–I've never seen this done but allegedly you can use maggots to essentially eat up all the dead tissue out of a wound.

E: Right.

S: To debris...

E: Right. Are we're saying you use these alternative is lue of some–of another option that doesn't exist at the time or place, right? I mean, aren't there better ways to deal with these things that leeches and maggots do in a modern scientific medical center.

S: Depends on what you mean by better.

P: (laughter)

E: Umm... Well, that's for–I guess that's for scientists...

S: Apparently–I wouldn't want to have maggots crawling inside my wound so–I'd be happy with just a surgeon with a scalpel debrising it if there were dead tissue there.

P: (laughter)

E: Right.

S: But the maggots do a fine job of eating up all the dead skin and they don't eat any of the live skin, so–it works.

E: What's the negative part of a maggot chewing on your...

S: Right.

(laughter)

B: It's the idea.

S: That's what they...

E: You're saying it's not a chick magnet.

(laughter)

E: You're saying it doesn't attract the chicks.

S: They turn into flies.

E: "Hey, baby, if you're into maggots..."

B: I saw–I saw a little spot–I saw a show that had a little five minute blurb on that many moons ago and–my memory is telling me that it was–there was some application that was–it was very efficient for that wasn't–there was really almost–I don't want to say no alternative but it was–it worked so well for certain applications...

S: The maggots you mean?

B: The maggots. The guy or the doctor was saying that, "I mean, this is such an excellent treatment for this." That it's much easier and much more specific than even he could be with his scalpel. Something like that.

E: Does it have to be prescribed? Do you need a prescription?

S: Not technically. No. I don't think so. It's not a FDA controlled drug, so, no.

E: Interesting.

S: It's a procedure, I guess.

E: What does the FDA have to say about these kinds of things?

S: I don't know. I don't know. Not–Nothing that I know of.

E: Interesting

Interview With Steven Milloy: Public Health, Libertarianism, Global Warming (18:44)

S: Well, let's bring on our guest at this time. So with us this week is Steve Milloy. Steve is the publisher of junkscience.com. A website dedicated to exposing bad science of all stripes. He's also an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute and author of, Junk Science Judo: Self Defense Against Health Scares and Scams as well as several other books on junk science. Steve, welcome to the Skeptics' Guide.

SM: It's great to be here. Thanks for having me.

S: We've talked about your website previously on our show. We go there frequently to look at the items. How long have you been doing this?

SM: We started junkscience.com on–fittingly on April 1^st, 1996, so we're actually on our tenth year now.

S: Great. Great. And what got...

B: Wow.

S: you interested in this topic?

SM: I used to work for a guy who was a consultant to business on regulator issues and I started out working on health risk issues...

S: Mm hmm.

SM: and I had–I had a unique background for my boss. I had a background in public health as well as a low degree I was working with regulatory agencies, and I was working on a number of different health risk issues and it struck me that no matter what statistical analysis or scientific fact I took to the agency they'd often already made up their minds.

S: Mm hmm.

SM: And they just weren't open to better science or better analysis...

S: Right.

SM: or facts or anything like that. And, so then I went started my own business. I got a contract with the Department of Energy to do a study for them on the role of science in environmental policy and it started to slowly dawn on me that in most policies–especially in environmental areas it's not really based on science. It's just based on politics.

S: Mm hmm.

SM: And from there one thing lead to another. I did my–a little book called, Science About Sense: The Risky Business of Public Health Research, which is a short, sort of tongue and cheek, manual on how to do a health scare. And the publication of that was received pretty well in the public health community and that sort of coincided with the rise of the internet, so junkscience.com was born.

S: It was a natural extension of what you were doing.

SM: Yeah.

S: Similar with us, I think. We got into skepticism in–pretty much–in the mid 90's right as the internet was becoming what it is and it was natural for us to move more and more of our activities onto the internet. It's a great way to reach people.

SM: Oh, yeah, I mean, ten years ago, someone like me had great difficulty trying to get a message out. But with the internet I don't need a printing press...

S: Right.

SM: all I need is a computer and...

S: And people will find you. What I find is people who are interested in the topic that you're writing about will find you because they'll search for it.

SM: Oh, absolutely.

S: So you don't have to go out and get your message out, you just have to have it there and people will find it when they're interested in it.

SM: Right. In the old days I would try to–I would have to try to have a, maybe, an op ed or an opinion piece published in a newspaper which, now is no problem, but ten years ago when I was kind of unknown and had no track record or reasons to publish anything I wrote...

S: Right.

SM: it was difficult. So, the internet sort of helped–helped me get to where I am today.

S: Mm hmm. So you are also–it says an adjunct scholar and at the Cato Institute.

SM: Right. Right.

S: The Cato Institute is a libertarian advocacy group.

SM: Right.

S: So it's hard not to notice the intimate relationship between...

SM: (laughter)

S: your–junkscience.com and the Cato Institute. In fact, you have–I've read your articles on both websites, often on the same topics.

SM: Yeah.

S: So, how much of this is intertwined–defense of good science or, I guess your attack of junk science or bad science, particularly how it relates to public policy, how much of that is tied to your political views?

SM: Well, I'll tell you when I first got into this business I was completely a political. I wasn't a democrat, wasn't republican. Didn't even know how to spell libertarian. And I really started going at this from just looking at the science.

S: Mm hmm.

SM: Of course, once you get into junk science it's more than–you start out with the science but then you have to look at–"Okay, this bad science. It's obviously bad science. Why would anyone advocate this or try to promote an agenda with this?" So, you have to look at what's behind the bad science and, more often than not, I find that the bad science is government agency...

S: Right.

SM: some sort of social activist, a trial lawyer, something of that ilk. I don't often find libertarians trying to impose their–use bad science to impose their views on people. That's not to say that on the right side of the political spectrum there aren't people that try to use bad science, there certainly are, but, in my view, I don't see good with–as being inconsistent with individual liberty and limited government.

S: Right. Right. You're views remind me a lot of John Stossel.

SM: Yeah. Stossel's a good friend of mine and he'll tell you that...

S: Is that right?

SM: Right. He started out as a consumer reporter always, sort of, bashing industry thinking that the Ralph Nader viewpoint was correct as he became more sophisticated and learned a few things he–he flip flopped. And, now he's one of me.

S: Right. He realized that the government, despite the best intentions, just by the nature of the beast, usually makes things worse than better.

SM: Well, you know, people that have an agenda, activists, I mean, they–a lot of times they're just say and do anything to have their agenda implemented and if it involves science well, then there ya go. That's where junk science come from.

S: Right. Now, of course, just as we're skeptics–skeptical activists if you will, we defend quality science, logic and reason from people who have an agenda whether it's political or social or religious so I definitely see this as part of the same skeptical philosophy that we endorse, but there are some issues where, I think, that are still pretty thorny. There are not that many issues about which educated, I think, bright skeptics and scientists will disagree. I think the one that comes up a lot, especially recently, and is featured on your website is global warming. This is a subject about which, I think, informed, well meaning people can disagree. You have on your the Kyoto Count Up where you're counting up how much money–it's not up to eighty three almost eighty four...

SM: Billion dollars.

S: billion dollars, is costing us–I assume that's the world that's...

SM: Yes.

S: That's the world wide cost.

SM: Global. Right.

S: Globally. And it's potential savings. Now I've–reading your various articles on global warming it certainly seems like you're attacking a lot of the environmentalism that is based upon claims of global warming but– and maybe I just haven't dug down deep enough yet, I haven't really heard you attack the concept of global warming itself. So I'm just wondering where you stand on the science of global warming.

SM: Well, I guess–I think I've written about global warming so many times that–that I'm sure that my editors at foxnews.com get tired of me writing about global warming so I don't always go over all the science all the time...

S: Right.

SM: but we can certainly talk about it if you want.

S: Well, what's the bottom line. What do you think?

SM: Well, I don't think that there's anything close to being credible science showing that humans are adversely impacting global climate. I mean, can humans affect global climate? Sure. All you got to do is look at–if you live in an urban area–you're evening weather map you'll see that the urban area is warmer than the area surrounding that and that's because of the urban heat island effect.

S: Right.

SM: Does that local change–can that–can it become global climate change? Well, I don't really think that there's any evidence of that. I mean, ninety nine–more than ninety nine percent of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere are natural, not man made. There's lots of...

B: Like bovine flatulence.

SM: Yeah.

E: That's part of it.

SM: There's lots of–climate is extremely complex. We can–we still can't even model...

S: Sure.

SM: clouds. The notion that we're going to–that somehow by reducing greenhouse gas emissions we chan adjust out thermostat like you can in your house is crazy. And then when you look at the potential costs of doing this–we live in a very–an energy hungry society and our economy depends on energy and the notion that we're going to somehow interfere with that process in some more than likely vain hope of controlling climate just seems ludicrous to me.

S: Well, the–of course the standard response is that...

SM: Oh, don't be shy. (laughter)

S: Well, I'm–this is an issue about which I am on the fence, although I will say that I think there is sufficient evidence, I think, for concern. I–with–the difficulty is with knowing exactly what policies to make because the implications are huge. The implications to our economy, to the world economy, to any control over the flow of energy is just enormous and unless we proceed from the best science possible we're likely to, again, cause more harm than good. But I do that there is a scientific consensus that there–global warming is a real man made effect.

SM: I would take issue with that. With just that very point.

S: With just that there is a consensus.

SM: With that very point. Right. I would challenge the nature of the consensus.

S: Do you agree–do you agree that–with their conclusion? Are you saying that there is no consensus? That there's disagreement?

SM: I think there is disagreement and then I–I realize that, you know, there are a lot of climatologists, a lot of people are–lot of scientists who are, you know, even tangentially involved with global warming who say that it's happening but I think you have to look at–the federal government puts–spends about two billion dollars a year on climate research and all that money goes to scientists who say that, "Yes, climate change is happening," cause once they start–once they stop saying that climate change is not happening they're not going to be getting the two billion dollars anymore. So there's a sort of institutional bias in promoting the hysteria.

E: Are there any independant one that are more reliable? Say in–or non-politically based.

SM: I don't–I don't really put too much stock in the independance of scientists necessarily. I mean I'd rather look at their scientific data first, but...

S: Right.

SM: I just–there is this situation where skeptical climatologists they are not funded to do research. There's no research funding going to them so you don't hear from them as much. I mean they can't afford the media releases, they can't afford–they're not supported by environmental groups. They don't have the power of federal agencies so you don't get to hear from them as much. I mean, it's a real–I mean there's a little cadre of people that I work with on this issue and it's been quite a struggle to get the skeptical voice on climate change heard. Because we're just so–so underfunded.

S: Well, one of the arguments that's put forward is that we–man made activity is increasing the CO₂ that is being dumped into the atmosphere, and we have a pretty good idea about how much CO₂ is going into the atmosphere. Saying that a lot of it is natural is, I think, is misleading if you're counting cow flatulence, because having vast herds of domestic animals is actually a man made situation. So that–you have–I don't think you can dismiss that as quote unquote "natural". But also–we also know–the greenhouse effect is well understood phenomenon. There's not a lot of mystery as to what's going on there. So it stands to reason that if we know the greenhouse effect, we know how it works, we're increasing the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere, why wouldn't that increase temperature over time?

SM: I–whether or not you consider cow flatulence man made or not I still that maintain that well over ninety nine percent of greenhouse gasses way up in the atmosphere are natural. If you look at–let's just take the twentieth century, for example, most–half the warming in the twentieth century occurred before 1940 but the vast majority of the greenhouse gas emissions occurred after 1940. And if you look the period 1940 to 1970 when greenhouse gas emissions were actually taking off there was actually global cooling which in 1975 the alarmists like Steve Schneider we worried about–looming ice age. If you look at a thousand years ago the vikings were cultivating Greenland. Since–it starting in the fourteenth century the advent of little ice age it became a frozen wasteland. Little ice age lasted until about the nineteenth century, which happens to coincide with the industrial revolution. It's quite possible that the warming we've witnessed over the last two hundred years is simply just our rebound from the little ice age.

S: Of course. That is the standard sort of anti-globey warming–anti-global warming argument. That the warming that we are recording is just a natural fluctuation in world wide temperatures.

SM: Well, I have to give the standard argument.

S: We know that this occurs. No, I mean, I agree. That is the argument to make. And it's legitimate because we don't know. The bottom line is we don't know if the warming that we're recording is man made or if is what would happen anyway. The–I think the big problem is is that because we're trying to predict long term global climate effects there's going to be reas–huge room for skepticism in the kind of data that we can get, until it's largely occurred. And one argument is that, "Well, by the time we know for sure and we've basically convinced all the skeptics that global warming is real it's too late to do anything about it." So, we do have to accept a certain amount of uncertainty and make the–basically the best judgement we can based upon the data that we do have and perhaps that could be used to justify some reasonable environmental measures to limit greenhouse gas.

SM: Well, I guess I would say in response to that, and you're forgetting about arguing about the science anymore, you know even if the Kyoto Protocol were fully implemented, I think, by 2050 it would reduce or avoid a potential seven hundredths of a degree of warming...

S: That's right.

SM: at an astronomical cost. And...

B: How is that determined?

S: By the amount of CO₂ that they protocols would prevent.

B: And they can tie that directly to a drop in temperature or a change in temperature.

SM: Yeah, I think that, the general–the general circulation models they have can tell you based on how much carbon dioxide is emitted–they'll give you an answer. Now, you've got to keep in mind that those models have never been validated against historical temperatures so for whatever–who knows what they're worth.

E: Mm.

S: Right.

SM: And I also–there's also this assumption and, I think that this is very important. We talked earlier about how climate changes naturally. Climate–whether we're releasing CO₂ or not climate is going to change. The question is it going to get warmer or is it going to get cooler? If it gets cooler that could be a bad thing for agriculture, and we depend on agriculture. If it gets warmer it's not necessarily a bad thing. I mean just because it gets warmer–there may be benefits. So we don't know what climate change holds for us. Obviously an extreme change would not be good but even a mild cooler change would not be good. We're not going to be able to keep the temperature the same. That's just impossible. So who's to say that a slight increase is going to be bad.

S: Yeah. We obviously don't know. There are pre–there are concerns about, for example, decreasing the salinity in the north Atlantic and shutting down the oceanic currents, even with a slight dec–increase in temperature but again these are theoretical.

SM: Right.

S: Obviously...

B: What about hurricanes? What about hurricane strengths. A lot more F5's potentially with a warmer earth.

SM: Now, I'm glad you brought that up, because the guy who, I think, first advanced the idea that global warming was going to intensify hurricanes, Kerry Emanuel from MIT, he's got this great posting on his website. There's been a lot of attempts to link Katrina to global warming...

B: Right. Right.

SM: he says that is absurd. I mean, using that word. He says that even if there is more more intense hurricanes it's not clear that these hurricanes hitting–making landfall in the U.S.

E: Mm hmm.

SM: So, I guess, my question is, "Okay, let's say we have more intense hurricanes in the Atlantic. A tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, who cares?"

Conclusion

S: The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is a production of the New England Skeptical Society. For more information on this and other episodes see our website at www.theness.com.

References