• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

History of a Climate Catastrophe

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here is an epic story of science. Judge for yourself how relevant it is.

Benoît Rittaud: History of a Climate Catastrophe

Posted on 12 Dec 16 by GEOFF CHAMBERS • 5 Comments
This is a presentation given by Benoît Rittaud at the recent climate conference in London. I’ve made a couple of corrections and condensed it slightly, with his permission. I would like to tell you an incredible and very enlightening story. It is almost unknown, and also it is, of course, perfectly authentic. It is the … Continu

I would like to tell you an incredible and very enlightening story. It is almost unknown, and also it is, of course, perfectly authentic. It is the story of a global illusion.
Towards the end of the century, several researchers observed a very puzzling phenomenon, so they tried to understand what was going on. They made careful observations, with the latest techniques, to provide strong foundations for their emerging theory.
And results followed. The initial observations were confirmed at a high level of confidence. Strongly supported by scientists from all parts of the world, the phenomenon and its consequences quickly seemed to be proven beyond any doubt.
This was an event of major impact: silently, a tragedy had begun, at a global scale, caused by dramatic climate change. Excessive warmth was generating droughts, lack of resources, and so on. No area on the planet would be safe.
The slow agony was probably irreversible. Among other things, the evolution of polar ice was regarded as the conclusive proof of the phenomenon, the canary in the coal mine.
So, was this world condemned to extinction, despite its prodigious technology? Obviously, nothing less than worldwide solidarity, together with huge efforts, would be necessary to save it. But maybe it was already too late…
All of this was a powerful argument to work for a better world, free of selfishness and injustice. As scientific research went on, newspapers all around the world reported its results. In the beginning of the new century, more and more people were aware of the work of scientists in the field. Dozens of books were written. Inspired scenario writers used the new theory to imagine scary end-of-the-world stories. A new culture was rising. New questions were asked. No one could remain indifferent. . . . .
 
What, no opinion of your own? Again?
 
Jack Hays said:
Here is an epic story of science. Judge for yourself how relevant it is.

Benoît Rittaud: History of a Climate Catastrophe

Posted on 12 Dec 16 by GEOFF CHAMBERS • 5 Comments
This is a presentation given by Benoît Rittaud at the recent climate conference in London. I’ve made a couple of corrections and condensed it slightly, with his permission. I would like to tell you an incredible and very enlightening story. It is almost unknown, and also it is, of course, perfectly authentic. It is the … Continu

I would like to tell you an incredible and very enlightening story. It is almost unknown, and also it is, of course, perfectly authentic. It is the story of a global illusion.
Towards the end of the century, several researchers observed a very puzzling phenomenon, so they tried to understand what was going on. They made careful observations, with the latest techniques, to provide strong foundations for their emerging theory.
And results followed. The initial observations were confirmed at a high level of confidence. Strongly supported by scientists from all parts of the world, the phenomenon and its consequences quickly seemed to be proven beyond any doubt.
This was an event of major impact: silently, a tragedy had begun, at a global scale, caused by dramatic climate change. Excessive warmth was generating droughts, lack of resources, and so on. No area on the planet would be safe.
The slow agony was probably irreversible. Among other things, the evolution of polar ice was regarded as the conclusive proof of the phenomenon, the canary in the coal mine.
So, was this world condemned to extinction, despite its prodigious technology? Obviously, nothing less than worldwide solidarity, together with huge efforts, would be necessary to save it. But maybe it was already too late…
All of this was a powerful argument to work for a better world, free of selfishness and injustice. As scientific research went on, newspapers all around the world reported its results. In the beginning of the new century, more and more people were aware of the work of scientists in the field. Dozens of books were written. Inspired scenario writers used the new theory to imagine scary end-of-the-world stories. A new culture was rising. New questions were asked. No one could remain indifferent. . . . .
Click to expand...

The Lysenko episode is a better illustration of what's going on.
 
Good story.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
I thought it was entertaining and instructive. Whether you think it's relevant depends largely on your view of the current climate debate, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Why would it be relevant to the current climate debate?
 
Deuce said:
Why would it be relevant to the current climate debate?
Click to expand...

For me, it's an example of the peril of consensus and what "everybody knows." The author himself is a bit wordier.

The world at the time of the discovery of the canals of Mars was fascinated by technology, engineering and, more generally, modernity, that is: the idea that, as Descartes said, we would some day become «masters and possessors of nature».
Now, we live in a world of postmodernity: we consider that we possess the world, but that we are unworthy of our power over it. It is this general philosophy of life, shared by so many intellectuals, that explains why the doubtful theory of anthropogenic global warming could gain so much credence. The idea that our planet is a living body, some kind of a goddess who demands repentence and sobriety, makes some climate alarmists (not all of them of course) examples of postmodern pseudoscientists.
As I see it, the climate affair is the newest avatar of what I call the exponential fear — the fear that humanity is growing exponentially fast — in the mathematic sense of the word — and that the world is fundamentally finite, so we will soon crash into our ultimate limits.
Let me quote James Hansen to illustrate my point. In 2007, he wrote in a peer-reviewed article that sea rise due to melting ice “was small until the past few years, but it is has (sic) at least doubled in the past decade and is now close to 1 mm/year (…). As a quantitative example, let us say that the ice sheet contribution is 1 cm for the decade 2005-15 and that it doubles each decade until the West Antarctic ice sheet is largely depleted. That time constant yields a sea level rise of the order of 5 m this century.”
So, in a sense, the climate fear is the newest avatar of the irrational exponential fear. It is not the first one. And it is probably not the last. Hence, we should be concerned by the fact that, sooner or later, it will be replaced by another one. Possibly the « Anthropocene ».
May we be able to prevent its emergence.
Thank you all.
 
Jack Hays said:
For me, it's an example of the peril of consensus and what "everybody knows." The author himself is a bit wordier.

The world at the time of the discovery of the canals of Mars was fascinated by technology, engineering and, more generally, modernity, that is: the idea that, as Descartes said, we would some day become «masters and possessors of nature».
Now, we live in a world of postmodernity: we consider that we possess the world, but that we are unworthy of our power over it. It is this general philosophy of life, shared by so many intellectuals, that explains why the doubtful theory of anthropogenic global warming could gain so much credence. The idea that our planet is a living body, some kind of a goddess who demands repentence and sobriety, makes some climate alarmists (not all of them of course) examples of postmodern pseudoscientists.
As I see it, the climate affair is the newest avatar of what I call the exponential fear — the fear that humanity is growing exponentially fast — in the mathematic sense of the word — and that the world is fundamentally finite, so we will soon crash into our ultimate limits.
Let me quote James Hansen to illustrate my point. In 2007, he wrote in a peer-reviewed article that sea rise due to melting ice “was small until the past few years, but it is has (sic) at least doubled in the past decade and is now close to 1 mm/year (…). As a quantitative example, let us say that the ice sheet contribution is 1 cm for the decade 2005-15 and that it doubles each decade until the West Antarctic ice sheet is largely depleted. That time constant yields a sea level rise of the order of 5 m this century.”
So, in a sense, the climate fear is the newest avatar of the irrational exponential fear. It is not the first one. And it is probably not the last. Hence, we should be concerned by the fact that, sooner or later, it will be replaced by another one. Possibly the « Anthropocene ».
May we be able to prevent its emergence.
Thank you all.
Click to expand...

Except it wasn't really a widespread belief.

Yet another pathetic anti-science diatribe from Jack Hays.
 
Deuce said:
Except it wasn't really a widespread belief.

Yet another pathetic anti-science diatribe from Jack Hays.
Click to expand...

The Canals of Mars – Universe

For a time in the late 19th century, it was believed that there were canals on Mars.
The Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli, who observed Mars in 1877, was the first to describe, name, and lovingly illustrate mysterious straight lines along its equatorial regions, which he called canali. Viewed with the telescopes of the day, in brief instances of still air amidst the optical strangeness of atmosphere, Mars was tough to figure. There are areas which appear darker or lighter (these are called Albedo features); to an enthusiastic observer, it was easy to speculate of continents, oceans, or even straight-line canals.
Beset by the same optical illusions, many astronomers seconded Schiaparelli’s observations. The maps of the day show a Mars riven with peculiar webs and lines–lines which successive high-resolution mapping of the planet have definitively shown do not exist. The mechanism that caused this illusion appears to be internal: faced with a shifting landscape of foggy forms, glimpsed at through simple lenses of glass through the refractive index of Earth’s atmosphere, the human brain tends to impose order. . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
The Canals of Mars – Universe

For a time in the late 19th century, it was believed that there were canals on Mars.
The Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli, who observed Mars in 1877, was the first to describe, name, and lovingly illustrate mysterious straight lines along its equatorial regions, which he called canali. Viewed with the telescopes of the day, in brief instances of still air amidst the optical strangeness of atmosphere, Mars was tough to figure. There are areas which appear darker or lighter (these are called Albedo features); to an enthusiastic observer, it was easy to speculate of continents, oceans, or even straight-line canals.
Beset by the same optical illusions, many astronomers seconded Schiaparelli’s observations. The maps of the day show a Mars riven with peculiar webs and lines–lines which successive high-resolution mapping of the planet have definitively shown do not exist. The mechanism that caused this illusion appears to be internal: faced with a shifting landscape of foggy forms, glimpsed at through simple lenses of glass through the refractive index of Earth’s atmosphere, the human brain tends to impose order. . . .
Click to expand...

Hardly anyone thought they were actual canals. But you don't care. You don't actually have an opinion on the "dangers of consensus." The reason I know this is that you've never, ever brought up this up in relation to anything but climate change.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Hardly anyone thought they were actual canals. But you don't care. You don't actually have an opinion on the "dangers of consensus." The reason I know this is that you've never, ever brought up this up in relation to anything but climate change.
Click to expand...

From the link:
Belief in Martian canals is often attributed to a linguistic fluke, that the Italian canali, meaning “channel” (or watercourse, and not necessarily of unnatural origin), was mistranslated to the English “canal.” I really love this narrative of language shaping reality, but unfortunately it’s the astronomical equivalent of an urban legend. “Canal,” in fact, was used in the earliest English accounts, and Schiaparelli made no move to correct the misunderstanding, if he was aware of it.
 
Jack Hays said:
From the link:
Belief in Martian canals is often attributed to a linguistic fluke, that the Italian canali, meaning “channel” (or watercourse, and not necessarily of unnatural origin), was mistranslated to the English “canal.” I really love this narrative of language shaping reality, but unfortunately it’s the astronomical equivalent of an urban legend. “Canal,” in fact, was used in the earliest English accounts, and Schiaparelli made no move to correct the misunderstanding, if he was aware of it.
Click to expand...

Yes, thank you for proving my point.

"Earliest accounts." Not a widespread phenomenon. If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and find a dozen or so other people writing about literal water canals. Actual astronomers, not random journalists or novelists who picked up on the idea.
 
Deuce said:
Yes, thank you for proving my point.

"Earliest accounts." Not a widespread phenomenon. If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and find a dozen or so other people writing about literal water canals. Actual astronomers, not random journalists or novelists who picked up on the idea.
Click to expand...

Still from the link:


Still, astronomers ran with the idea. The Irish astronomer Charles E. Burton made beautiful sketches of the lines, and (according to an unsubstantiated Wikipedia entry) speculated that they were ley lines used by Martian sorcerers. The American Percival Lowell, who founded the Lowell Observatory in 1894, made the most committed speculations on the subject. Despite ramping scientific skepticism to the contrary, Lowell almost single-handedly popularized the notion of the canals as proof that the planet once sustained intelligent life. His drawings of the canals look like Italian Futurist masterworks or the spacey doodles of Joan Miró.
 
Jack Hays said:
Still from the link:


Still, astronomers ran with the idea. The Irish astronomer Charles E. Burton made beautiful sketches of the lines, and (according to an unsubstantiated Wikipedia entry) speculated that they were ley lines used by Martian sorcerers. The American Percival Lowell, who founded the Lowell Observatory in 1894, made the most committed speculations on the subject. Despite ramping scientific skepticism to the contrary, Lowell almost single-handedly popularized the notion of the canals as proof that the planet once sustained intelligent life. His drawings of the canals look like Italian Futurist masterworks or the spacey doodles of Joan Miró.
Click to expand...

Despite ramping scientific skepticism to the contrary,
Click to expand...

:lamo

What a consensus!

So, up to two now. Got any more? No? Because the article didn't give you any?
 
Jack Hays said:
You asked for actual astronomers and I provided two. Schiaparelli makes three.
Click to expand...

Congratulations. But you said this was a consensus. Surely you can do better than three..

Jack, this was a small number of people making some speculations based on a small number of highly-limited observations. Comparing this to climate science in 2016 is the height of absurdity.
 
Deuce said:
Congratulations. But you said this was a consensus. Surely you can do better than three..

Jack, this was a small number of people making some speculations based on a small number of highly-limited observations. Comparing this to climate science in 2016 is the height of absurdity.
Click to expand...

Somewhere you have gotten lost. From the OP:

Now, let’s be clear: the fact that there are no canals on Mars does not disprove the theory of anthropogenic global warming. This talk is nothing more than an analogy. It is not intended to prove anything. It is only meaning is to stimulate thinking.
Yes, scientists sometimes make mistakes. Yes, their personal beliefs can sometimes alter their views. And when science and morality are mixed up, when confusion appears between science and politics or philosophy of life, then science loses itself.

The OP does not claim there was a consensus.
 
Jack Hays said:
Somewhere you have gotten lost. From the OP:

Now, let’s be clear: the fact that there are no canals on Mars does not disprove the theory of anthropogenic global warming. This talk is nothing more than an analogy. It is not intended to prove anything. It is only meaning is to stimulate thinking.
Yes, scientists sometimes make mistakes. Yes, their personal beliefs can sometimes alter their views. And when science and morality are mixed up, when confusion appears between science and politics or philosophy of life, then science loses itself.

The OP does not claim there was a consensus.
Click to expand...

You brought up the dangers of consensus. I'm responding to you, Jack, that's why I quote your posts.
 
Deuce said:
You brought up the dangers of consensus. I'm responding to you, Jack, that's why I quote your posts.
Click to expand...


Yes. To me that's a lesson to be drawn. It is not a claim that belief in the canals was a consensus.
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes. To me that's a lesson to be drawn. It is not a claim that belief in the canals was a consensus.
Click to expand...

...if canals were never a consensus, why would this be a lesson to be drawn?

Further study dismissed the notion. That's how science works. What danger do we see in this?
 
Deuce said:
...if canals were never a consensus, why would this be a lesson to be drawn?

Further study dismissed the notion. That's how science works. What danger do we see in this?
Click to expand...

The believers remained durable in their faith, despite evidence to the contrary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom