Abusing Science

Number 15 of a series


The title of this series comes from a book of that name by Philip Kitcher. Abuse comes in numerous manifestations, some appearing to spring from deep-seated ignorance of basic science. That’s what’s going on here.

Dan Kuttner is a person I knew when I lived in Austin 50 years ago. After serving in the military and working in communications, he now hosts the Radio Free Mind site, giving him the opportunity to express his varied views. I highly recommend you visit the site and tune into his thought processes. Let me know what you think. It is definitely something.

That aside, Dan also posts on Facebook, and he agreed to allow me to repost from his feed. It is a repeat (and he emphasizes that) of something he posted before. When this was originally posted I had a go at it, and there are a number of Skeptical Analysis posts that draw from Dan’s, what I call, “11 points.” Here they are, copied and pasted from Dan’s timeline:

Some questions on the science behind Global Warming:

Radio Free Mind


  1. How does CO2, which is 1.4x heavier than air at sea level, get above the troposphere to cause a greenhouse effect?

  2. Since Mercury, Venus and Mars’ temperatures have been rising, how does the CO2 count on Earth affect those planets?

  3. How have other climate variables, such as the sunspot cycle and naturally produced gases including, but not limited to, CO2 been subtracted from the IECC climate model?

  4. If global warming is happening, why did they change the name of the crisis to “Climate Change?”

  5. Since “Climate Change” is the new mantra, how and where is the climate changing?

  6. Since [fill in name of crisis] is bad, what is the “proper” temperature of the world without the influence of man-made CO2?

  7. How has the correlation of an alleged increase in man-made CO2 and global temperatures been used to prove >> causation << by man?

  8. How will paying a tax to a mandated monopoly headed by Al Gore’s British company fix the world’s emission of greenhouse gases?

  9. Since so far none of the climate-alarmists’ predictions have come true, why should we believe them today?

  10. Since the claimed increase in temperatures and rise in sea levels are less than the statistical margin of error for even an excellent sample, how can any claim of an increase be made?

  11. If Global Warming is real, why have the main proponents of it been caught at least THREE times faking, fudging or redefining the figures to make it come out that way?(e.g. East Anglia’s “climate-gate” emails)

Full disclosure: before I determined to react publicly, I communicated with him, and he convinced me the 11 points are not meant to be a joke, and, yes, I could attribute these to him. These are his 11 points.

In another world there should be no need for me to comment further, as the above language speaks for itself. However, this blog site is all about commentary, so I will spend the following 11 posts of this series addressing each of the 11 points in turn. Keep reading. It is an interesting world out there.

7 thoughts on “Abusing Science

  1. Pingback: Abusing Science | Skeptical Analysis

  2. Pingback: Abusing Science | Skeptical Analysis

  3. #6 is a pretty decent question, I think. It’s perfectly fine to ask what climate would be in the absence of human activities. But there is no such thing as its proper state.

    • Steve: Obviously the problem of AGW relates only to human needs and desires. Without us the Earth could go to Hell in a hand basket, so to speak, and it has in the past. The problem is, we have built infrastructure (e.g., cities) that are about to be endangered before they have served out their expected usefulness. Disregarding how climate change might affect crops and such, sea level rise is going to be the the major immediate concern. A rise of two feet will ruinously affect such places as Miami and New York City. Of course New York City was once covered by thousands of feet of glacial ice, and that could return thousands of years from now. Where Miami is now was once the bottom of a shallow sea. But that was before we invested billions of dollars (trillions?) and built a city there. The problem with AGW is rapid climate change–faster than we can accommodate without ruinous consequences.

  4. John: I notice you only addressed point #3, by itself, in a different post, and that only to mock it without refutation. You allude to other posts which address others of my questions but I sure don’t see them.

    All 11 points still stand, as I expected.

    • Daniel: It was my intent to address your points in separate posts. However, I have changed my mind. Other issues concerning abuse of science are coming up, and I need to get finished with your 11 points sooner.

      Anyhow, I did answer your number 3. I showed that AGW is independent of variables such as solar activity. Let me know if you need more.

  5. Pingback: Abusing Science | Skeptical Analysis

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.