From the editor's notes in Mark Twain: Collected Tales, Sketches, Speeches, & Essays (1891-1910)†, we find this amazing tidbit of science and medical history:

Ignaz Phillipp Semmelweis, (1811-65), a Hungarian physician working in Vienna, demonstrated the infectious nature of puerperal ("childbed") fever in 1846 and greatly reduced the maternal mortality rate by requiring childbirth attendants to wash their hands with a chlorine solution. He was ridiculed for his belief and forced from his hospital post by his supervisor. He returned to Hungary and accepted a part-time position at Pest hospital, offered on the condition that he not promote his theory. His book The Etiology of Puerperal Fever (written in the mid-1850s detailing his experiments in Vienna) was harshly criticized when it was published in 1861. He died in a mental hospital of an infection resulting from a self-inflicted wound with a contaminated scalpel. His findings were not widely accepted until the 1890s. (Page 1038)

Those of you familiar with Dr. Semmelweis' story might recall that he had tried a variety of experiments in Vienna with many of his internists to figure out why the mortality rate of new mothers in one ward of his hospital was higher than that of new mothers in a different ward. What he discovered would be startling to us today: his students were going directly from working on cadavers to giving gynecological exams -- without taking ANY sanitary measures. He made a grisly connection after a gruesome observation: a young colleague with whom he was dissecting a corpse accidentally slipped with a scalpel and cut himself, leaving a small, infectious wound that led to the young man's death. Dr. Semmelweis soon instituted a hand-washing protocol -- a radical idea -- not only before examining women but between EACH examination: puerperal fever basically disappeared in his ward.

Dr. Semmelweis' own death via a contaminated scalpel was a suicidal statement: he was the victim of "scientific consensus."
_____________________

Mark Twain's Thoughts On Scientific Consensus

In "Dr. Loeb's Incredible Discovery," a short essay by Mark Twain, Twain prefaces his remarks with an excerpt of what was at the time a recent editorial by the New York Times (March 2, 1905: If you would like to read the original editorial, you can find it at THIS LINK; the PDF is worth looking at, as the column is shown in facsimile.)

Here is what Mr. Twain excerpts from the Times, with his emphasis added in quotation marks:

Experts in biology will be apt to receive with some skepticism the announcement of Dr. Jacques Loeb of the University of California as to the creation of life by chemical agencies ... Doctor Loeb is a very bright and ingenious experimenter, but "a consensus of opinion among biologists" would show that he is rated rather as a man of lively imagination than an inerrant investigator of natural phenomena.

Here is, in small part, Mr. Twain's reply to the New York Times' trust in consensus:

...[I]n the drift of years I by and by found that a Consensus examines a new thing by its feelings rather oftener than with its mind. You know, yourself, that this is so.…

Do you know of a case where a Consensus won a game? You can go back as far as you want to and you will find history furnishing you this (until now) unwritten maxim for your guidance and profit: Whatever new thing a Consensus coppers (colloquial for "bets against"), bet your money on that very card and do not be afraid.

There was that primitive steam engine -- ages back, in Greek times: a Consensus made fun of it. There was the Marquis of Worcester's steam engine, 250 years ago: a Consensus made fun of it. There was Fulton's steamboat of a century ago: a French Consensus, including the Great Napolean, made fun of it. There was Priestly, with his oxygen: a Consensus scoffed at him, mobbed him, burned him out, banished him. While a Consensus was proving, by statistics and things, that a steamship could not cross the Atlantic, a steamship did it. A Consensus consisting of all the medical experts in Great Britain made fun of Jenner and inoculation. A Consensus consisting of all the medical experts in France made fun of the stethoscope. A Consensus of all the medical experts in Germany made fun of that young doctor (his name? forgotten by all but doctors, now, revered by doctors alone) who discovered and abolished the cause of that awful disease, puerperal fever; made fun of him, reviled him, hunted him, persecuted him, broke his heart, killed him. Electric telegraph, Atlantic cable, telephone, all "toys," of no practical value -- verdict of the Consensuses. Geology, paleontology, evolution -- all brushed into space by a Consensus of theological experts, comprising all the preachers in Christendom, assisted by the Duke of Argyle and (at first) the other scientists.

I must stop for fear of boring readers with Twain's many examples of how scientific consensuses actually hinder scientific inquiry and progress. It is not merely a fact of history, but one of process: scientific knowledge is not advanced by consensus. If anything, it is advanced by the force of a lone voice, by the voice of the minority, shaped and perfected by the stubborn denials of the majority.

By the way, Dr. Jacques Loeb was right. The New York Times, aligned with all the really "bright" minds united in consensus, was wrong.

____________________

Twain Not Alone

T. S. Kuhn, years after Mark Twain, argued that prior to scientific consensuses bearing any epistemological weight, a period of conflict between rival theories and theoreticians must -- and does -- take place. This conflict not only revolves around differences of methodology, but also around anomalies in data and criteria of value. Once the conflict phase has been passed, a paradigm shift occurs, or, truer to Kuhn's language, there is a revolution in science.

I believe it can be clearly shown that the current "consensus of opinion" regarding global warming has attempted to leap right over the conflict phase of scientific progress. Anomalies do abound; there is disagreement about variables and constants and algorithms. But the consensus is presented as if none of those things exist; it is consensus' pretense that all is fine and all is understood, accepted and assimilated. Amazingly, lone voices, all equally expert (if not more so), are dismissed as crankish, peevish, fatuous or corrupt if they challenge the consensus, or if they point out systemic problems and anomalies.

In a series of essays I wrote at NHInsider wherein I critique the assertions of an alleged expert on global warming who works in my home-state, I was finally dismissed by one interlocutor as a "crank" (I make no claim to expertise, by the way). His dismissal of me is bemusing, and it reminds me of something Theodore Dalrymple wrote in In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Pre-conceived Ideas, (especially if Dalrymple specifically had addressed the problem of consensus):

This is what one might call the Forty-million-Frenchmen-can't-be-wrong argument: that what other people do, provided they do it in sufficient numbers, is a guarantee of its rightness. We are very far here from the autonomous and inquiring individual ... who always reasons out for himself what he should do [or believe].

It is rather disconcerting to see so many people choose NOT to examine things for themselves, and if that is not disconcerting, the popular dismissal of a person's skepticism or a single person's innovation very much is. Mark Twain's incisive remarks serve as an augur's alarm: he passed down to us observations and warnings we should always heed.

I am thankful to that old crank for being so generous -- and for being so right.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008. All Rights Reserved.

†published by Literary Classics of the United States, Inc.; 1992: New York, New York.

(THIS ESSAY ORIGINALLY POSTED AT CONTRATIMES. IT ALSO LOGICALLY FOLLOWS FROM THE SERIES AND DISCUSSION THAT BEGINS AT this LINK.)

[This is the last in a three-part series examining a July 3, 2008 letter to the editor written by Edward “Ted” Leach. Mr. Leach is the co-chair of the Carbon Coalition. You may read his complete letter at THIS LINK. Parts 1 and 2 begin at THIS LINK, and THIS LINK, respectively.]

WHERE WE’VE BEEN THUS FAR

In Part 1 of this series, we examined Mr. Leach’s claim that 26 ski areas in New Hampshire were closed due to global warming. We learned that Mr. Leach made no effort to identify a single scientific fact that would support his claim, and we noted that he failed to discuss the many economic factors intrinsic to the NH ski industry – none of which is contingent on global warming conditions – that do, in fact, explain why those ski areas are closed.

In Part 2, we discussed Mr. Leach’s claim that New Hampshire’s hemlocks are endangered because of milder winters; he avers that the hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA) could not survive the state’s allegedly harsh and normal winter conditions.

Of course, we learned that Mr. Leach failed to note that the HWA is a Japanese import that has been proven to survive in temperatures as low as –30˚ Celsius. Moreover, Mr. Leach failed to note that the HWA is a newcomer to the United States, particularly the northeast, and thus there are scant long-term data to support his assertion that HWAs are vulnerable to cold; and he failed to note that HWAs, which have endured harsh climes in Japan for centuries, are not static creatures but are dynamic, able to adapt and evolve.

Thus, we have every reason to believe that Mr. Leach is in over his head and that his intimations of authority are highly dubious.

THE UNREASON OF IT ALL

Today, I want to focus on why Mr. Leach epitomizes the fallacy argumentum ad verecundiam, or the fallacy of the appeal to authority. Such a fallacy is quite common and consists of two things: one, an appeal to an authority as validation of a particular truth claim; and two, an appeal to an authority that is not authoritative at all. Also, I will show that Mr. Leach further commits the fallacy argumentum ad populum, or the appeal to a majority, to support his otherwise unsupported claims. Lastly, I will briefly show how Mr. Leach gets another fact quite wrong when he suggests that an early “ice-out” on NH’s Lake Winnipesaukee is harmful to fish.

Please notice that Mr. Leach begins his letter with an embarrassing analogy:

“If you put a kettle of water on the stovetop, and turn on the heat and put in your finger, you will feel no heat. If you leave your finger in for a long time, by the time you find the heat unbearable and take your finger out, the damage will be done -- your finger is cooked and the water is boiling. However, if you put the kettle on and bring it to a rolling boil before you put in your finger, you will instantly know that something significant has changed but there is nothing you can do, the water is already boiling.

“That is what is happening in the global warming debate. We have our finger in the kettle but the change is gradual and we feel only a mild sensation. But the kettle (earth) is heating up and eventually major damage will occur.”

Why, you may ask, is this embarrassing? The answer is simple: The analogy is utterly false. Warm-blooded humans DO respond to temperature changes, even when gradual. Any self-reflective person knows this instantly; I defy anyone to be lulled into complacency during a gradual heat up of his or her hand submerged in a potful of water that is being heated to a boil. Humans react to gradual heating all the time: we awaken to cool temperatures and we constantly note the gradual heating throughout the day – until we seek relief in the pool or air conditioning in mid-afternoon. For heaven’s sake, humans sweat while showering, even if they begin with a cold shower that is slowly heated! Humans respond to temperature nearly immediately.

Instead of demonstrating clarity and insight in his bold analogy, Mr. Leach mangles what is actually an old analogy about a cold-blooded frog in the proverbial slowly heated water: a frog placed in lukewarm water will die if that water is slowly heated to boiling, but it will strain frantically if dropped directly into boiling water. The source of this well-known story is over 100 years old, rooted in experimental claims made by researchers at Johns Hopkins University.

Hence, in his very prefatory remarks, Mr. Leach proves himself an unreliable source. He has no right speaking about scientific matters he clearly has not applied himself to in the slightest. He may be a spokesperson, but surely he is no authority.

As for the argumentum ad populum fallacy, it is found here:

“Alert people, and the best scientific minds in the world, are responding to the telltale signs that something is happening while others are waiting for some cataclysmic moment.”

Note how Mr. Leach presents his case. First, he includes himself in that set of many people who are not asleep but “alert”. One could hardly be more self-approving. But note that he marries alertness to “the best scientific minds in the world.” Ahh, yes! The BEST scientific minds in the world agree, and hence we all must fall prostrate before so great and so convincing a force. Let all truly alert minds align with the very best.

But this is really an appeal to a majority (even an appeal to vanity), to some unnamed, unshaped collection of voices that happens to concur. Irrespective of the undeniable fact that science nearly always progresses by force of the minority voice, you know, the lone voice (recall Galileo) standing against the monolithic scientific presuppositions of any given day; irrespective of the fact that this all stands in contradiction to T. S. Kuhn’s unshaken thesis about the structure of scientific revolutions and the progress of knowledge (see his monumental The Structure of Scientific Revolutions); irrespective of the fact that majorities are very often wrong, and that consensus is not part of the scientific method, Mr. Leach makes an appeal to “the best scientific minds.” But truly alert people find Mr. Leach’s appeal to “the best scientific minds in the world” ridiculous.

The fact is that Mr. Leach has no idea who are the “best scientific minds in the world,” none whatsoever.

Combine these two fallacies with Mr. Leach’s non causa pro causa fallacy discussed in Part 1, and we are left with nothing but drivel.

SMOTHERING IN NONSENSE

Lastly, let me quickly comment on Mr. Leach’s final piece of evidence presented to warn us about the allegedly undeniable fact of anthropogenic causes of global warming:

“Ice out on Lake Winnipesaukee is almost eight days earlier than in the early 1800s. Why is that important -- because ice cover affects the oxygen concentration, pH, fish habitat and seasonal succession of lakes.”

Permit me to disregard the bulk of Mr. Leach’s assertion here. Let me just point out his implication that early ice-out adversely affects “oxygen concentrations” in lake water. Question: Could Mr. Leach be any more wrong? Answer: No. Fact: the longer a lake is covered with ice, the worse it is for oxygen concentrations. In truth, fish can smother beneath the ice: fish and other organisms absorb oxygen to such a degree that they deplete the water of what they need. In fact, according to news reports and the New Hampshire Division of Fish and Game, this happens nearly annually, with dead fish showing up along shorelines after ice clears from lakes and ponds. Mr. Leach only sounds like he knows what he is talking about.

CONCLUSION

So what is the overall conclusion here? Well, the same as it has been through this entire series: Mr. Leach ignores or manipulates science, and hence misleads the very public his coalition is chartered to inform. His letter is vacant of anything resembling truth or accuracy. It is misinformation, even propaganda. Thus, all citizens of New Hampshire need to be duly suspicious of the claims and political recommendations of the Carbon Coalition. That 3/4ths of the state’s towns gave the Carbon Coalition such attention in 2007 should raise warning flags over every town common.

Food for thought.

©Bill Gnade 2008

Edward Leach, Ted Leach

[This is Part 2 in a series in which I discuss a recent letter to the editor written by Edward "Ted" Leach, co-chair of New Hampshire's Carbon Coalition. Part 1 begins here.]

___________________________

AN ASIDE: Why Is This Important?

I have focussed on Mr. Leach's letter for two main reasons. First, the Carbon Coalition (CC) is heavily involved in NH politics. According to an AP report, 75 percent of New Hampshire towns voted -- during town meeting season -- on a 2007 global warming resolution drafted by the Carbon Coalition. That resolution can be read here. (A list of towns that allegedly approved the resolution can be found here.)

Second, Mr. Leach writes as a spokesperson for the CC. According to the CC's own mission statement, the coalition "educates New Hampshire citizens about the local and global impacts of global warming." And since the CC presents itself as scientifically based (see here), then we should expect to see that science represented in its efforts to "educate." Hence, it behooves us to interact with the coalition's assertions.

____________________________

MR. LEACH'S THESIS: A Thousand Subtle Signs of Global Warming

Should readers like to peruse Mr. Leach's letter for themselves, they may do so at this link. In his letter readers will find that Mr. Leach contends that three phenomena -- the closing of 26 NH ski areas in 31 years, the emergence of the hemlock woolly adelgid "beetle", and early ice-out on Lake Winnipesaukee -- are "subtle signs" that global warming is happening and that immediate measures must be taken to stop it.

Today, I would like to focus on Mr. Leach's second assertion about Adelges Tsugae, the hemlock woolly adelgid. Read what Mr. Leach claims:

"Our forests were never invaded by hemlock killing woolly adelgid beetles because the beetles could not survive our cold winters. Today, they are feasting on hemlocks across southern New Hampshire."

I ask, is there any science presented here by Mr. Leach that supports his claim; is there any science offered that might draw us closer to trusting the allegedly scientific claims that anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide and other gases are dangerously warming the planet? Of course, the answer is no. There is nothing presented here: what we have instead is just a bold assertion -- offered by someone who allegedly is in a position of expertise -- with only anecdotal strength. The science is curiously absent. Why?

____________________________

EVIDENCE IGNORED: What Mr. Leach Fails To Tell You

Let's take a brief look at what Mr. Leach leaves out of his letter.

1. According to a study that tries to make a similar claim, namely that woolly adelgids are killed by cold weather, we learn that woolly adelgids have only been in New England since the mid-1980s, when they were found to have infested trees in Connecticut. (The bugs are a Japanese pest accidentally introduced to America in the 1950s). It took at least 10 years for the beetles to reach southern New Hampshire from Connecticut. Hence, since the pest has only been in New England in climatological terms mere days, any assertions about the "data" on survivability are to be taken with some caution.
2. Again, according to the study cited above, tests show that 3 percent (or better) of the woolly adelgids survive temperatures at or near minus-30 degrees Celsius (-22˚F). While this may seem like proof that cold winters will kill these invasive pests, this actually works against Mr. Leach's claim. Cold winters might not kill all adelgids. Moreover, there is no mention in Mr. Leach's claims of the adelgids' life-cycles; there is no mention whether some adelgids survive because of snow insulation, or because of habitation on lower, smaller and therefore sheltered trees.
3. A second study also confirms that some adelgids can survive extreme temperatures: "Although mortality was as high as 95% in one of the most severe treatments (February collection exposed to -30°C for 24 hr), the fact that complete mortality did not occur suggests that HWA [hemlock woolly adelgid] may be able to continue to expand its range into areas with colder winters." That study's abstract can be read here.
4. A third report, viewable at this link, gives us this gem that should stop Mr. Leach in his tracks: "Because HWA is adapted to high elevations in Japan where winter temperatures commonly drop below -35˚C (-63˚F) [sic], it should continue to spread in eastern North America until it occupies the entire range of eastern hemlock." [I duly note that the writers of this study made a mistake on the Celsius conversion: we're talking -31˚F]
5. Note that Mr. Leach writes of the adelgids this way: "[the] hemlock killing woolly adelgid beetles." But in the first study cited above, we find this:

"Interestingly, the interval between first infestation and tree death appears to vary from location to location. For example, McClure (1991) described a 4- to 6-year infestation period that involved cycles of adelgid growth and tree decline in Connecticut, which often resulted in tree death. In contrast, many hemlocks in Massachusetts have harbored infestations for 10 years or more without dying, and these infestations are not widespread. For example, HWA [Hemlock Woolly Adelgid] was first documented in Amherst, MA in 1995, yet as of 2006 the vast majority of hemlock trees in this town are still not infested (Elkinton, personal observation). Further, many towns in the inland-central and western part of the state have no known infestations despite the insect having been present in Massachusetts for 17 years. At the northern range of adelgid in New England, cold winters are thought to explain the observed slow rate of spread of HWA and the long survival of infested hemlocks."

What this latter quote suggests is that the science is still rather uncertain. At the risk of sounding too much like a philosopher, I will note that Mr. Leach fails to examine adaptability and climate, or how they interact: all we may know is that southern hemlocks -- the trees themselves -- are weakened by warmer temperatures, not simply that woolly adelgids are killed by colder temperatures and that those temperatures protect northern trees from brutal infestation. Why some trees survive while others don't has not yet been determined scientifically. Some other factor than climate may be at play here.

Which leads to another important point, namely, the role of genetics, evolution and adaptability. Mr. Leach does not at all explore whether woolly adelgids are surviving in part because they are evolving right before our eyes. Climate change may have nothing to do with their success. Chalk it all up to genetics.

____________________________

CONCLUSION

Once again we reach an identical conclusion to the one arrived at in Part 1 of this series: something other than science is at work in Mr. Leach's writing. Working as a spokesman for the Carbon Coalition, Mr. Leach is not writing scientifically when he makes sweeping assertions about the inevitability of global warming and climate change. His remarks are not so much off-the-cuff as they are inflated and misleading, and therefore off-the-mark. In other words, we find that Mr. Leach's attempts at educating the unknowing public are bereft of science. No doubt those attempts are presented with the appearance of science; if appearances were all that mattered, Mr. Leach's presentation would be wildly compelling. Thankfully, at least to some of us, reason, skepticism and inquiry still matter.

Regarding the studies cited above, a word of note: I am not suggesting that they absolutely disprove Mr. Leach's claim, only that they should at the very least give him, and all of us, some pause. They invariably sow seeds of doubt, and thus impel us toward circumspection and restraint. We should therefore not be given to the wild speculations common to the global warming alarmism in which Mr. Leach participates.

Food for thought.

(Part 3 of this series begins at THIS LINK.)

©Bill Gnade 2008

TAGS: global warming, Edward Leach, Carbon Coalition, New Hampshire, hemlock woolly adelgid beetle, climate change, Ted Leach

In a letter to the editor printed in the July 3, 2008 edition of the Monadnock Ledger-Transcript, Edward "Ted" Leach, co-chair of the Carbon Coalition and former Republican state representative from Hancock, gives us a glimpse of global warming vacuity.

Making the case that the signs of global warming are "subtle" (so subtle, in fact, that one might never notice them until it is too late), Mr. Leach offers the following as evidence of such subtlety:

In 1977, we had 48 ski areas in New Hampshire. Today we have 22. Is that important to you -- maybe not? But Peterborough loved Temple Mountain.

That Mr. Leach's statement is not one whit scientific but rather entirely anecdotal is undeniable; thus it undeniably deadens interest in any truly scientific pursuits. His non causa pro causa fallacy, where he (and the vast majority of global warming alarmists) confuses correlation with causality, results in a type of rhetorical lobotomy.

Let's look at all that Mr. Leach leaves out:

1. Many New England ski areas (there used to be far more) began as "mom-and-pop" family-run areas, or small cooperative-type ventures, with small hills, small budgets.
2. Many of these small areas were created when skiing was a hobby; few envisioned that skiing could become a full-time industry offering full-time careers.
3. Many of these ski areas operated on limited schedules. For the vast majority of its business existence, Temple Mountain Ski Area, for example, only operated on weekends and holidays.
4. Many of these ski areas could not compete as corporations, and other ambitious developers and owners, expanded ski areas into resorts, resulting in smaller areas shutting down.
5. Many of these small areas also did not have the terrain, the money or the infrastructure to compete.
6. Many of these areas were poorly located; access was inconvenient (for many years this was a major skier complaint regarding the original Crotched Mountain Ski Area in Francestown/Bennington; it remains a chief gripe about access to Ragged Mountain in Danbury). Meanwhile, other areas were very accessible, especially to large population areas, like Boston and New York (for Vermont skiing).
7. As snow-making increased (such an increase had NOTHING to do with "climate change"), many areas could not afford to upgrade; and if they could, they did not have the access to water necessary to pump out millions of gallons for snow (Sunday River in Maine is well-known for having vast water reserves).
8. As technology improved, so too did skier expectations. Gone was the simple interest in a weekend getaway to ski and live as "rusticators" content with a drafty lodge, a charming inn. Skiers began to expect four-star amenities. Small areas could never adapt accordingly.

All of these combine to make Mr. Leach's remarks utterly unconvincing. And if it is true that the Carbon Coalition's raison d'être is to inform people about global warming and climate change in New Hampshire, one can only speculate that the coalition's charter has been compromised by its own spokesman. How else to explain Mr. Leach's utterly un-scientific pronouncements? And how could he actually ignore the economics of skiing in New Hampshire? Where is the science in his assertion?

Regardless of motive, Mr. Leach excludes far more that is readily available:

• In a NHPTV/PBS-aired documentary on the history of skiing in New England, I spotted a segment on the 1940s construction of Vermont's Mad River Glen in which one founding member recalled that the mountain received so much snow its second year it couldn't open. The following year, however, the mountain did not open till February for lack of snow; and the following four or five years were so snowlessly bad that businesses and inns around the mountain went bankrupt or shut themselves down. And this was more than 50 years ago! Today, MRG is thriving, having come off another banner year (like nearly every ski area in New England). But no mention of this sort of anecdote from Mr. Leach; nor any mention of any period in recent decades where ski areas were unable to open for 5 straight years, or even ONE year!
• Mr. Leach does not explore the possibility that there are more skiable acres, and more total skier hours (skiers can enjoy night skiing many places), in New England than ever before. Many mountain trails are massively wide; the increase is due to huge snow-making networks and incredibly effective trail-grooming techniques. For decades, New England ski areas had tiny, narrow trails, as the snow on trails needed protection from the sun, wind and rain. Today, one trail at Sugarloaf, Sunday River, or Mount Snow might have more skiable terrain than a small mountain -- like the defunct Temple Mountain -- had on all its trails combined. In short, there is more skiing now than ever before. Hence, the closing of 26 ski areas is nearly, if not totally, irrelevant. Free-market economics play a far greater explanatory role here than do any meteorological or scientific theories.
• Mr. Leach also fails to consider the obvious, and this is the most important thing he should have included: If we assume that all ski areas in New England experienced better weather conditions in the past, and therefore were more economically viable "once upon a time", how do we know such weather and climate conditions were "normal"? What if such a weather pattern was actually anomalous? Since New Englanders have only been keeping strict weather records for -- at best -- 125 years (the record is actually much shorter), how can we justifiably infer that such weather patterns were normal? And is there even such a thing as "normal" weather, or "normal" climate?

What is perhaps most egregious is that Mr. Leach makes no effort -- none! -- to show that a single ski area in New England has ever closed because of global warming. No, he commits a fallacy instead of offering even a modicum of scientific analysis; he trusts you'll fall for the trick. But you won't, largely because you spotted his devilry: when he talked about "subtle signs", you knew that the closing of 26 ski areas in 31 years was not whit subtle, if indeed, they were closed due to global warming.

Thus, we can conclude that Mr. Leach must not believe mastery of his subject matter all that important. His is a most cynical form of alarmism, indifferent to facts, history, economics or science; and his manner comes across not only as cavalier and condescending -- he expects you to be gullible -- but even a little desperate.

Lastly, as a former employee of Temple Mountain Ski Area (from 1977-80 and 1984-until closing), I can assure you that global warming had nothing -- NOTHING! -- to do with the closing of that fine and tiny mountain.

Food for thought.

Peace.

(Part 2 in this series begins at THIS LINK.)

©Bill Gnade 2008

TAGS: global warming, Edward Leach, Carbon Coalition, New Hampshire, ski industry, climate change, Ted Leach

OK. Despite the fact that we are all about full and responsible freedom here at NH Insider, you have to read "Global Warming As Mass Neurosis" by Bret Stephens. It is simply and unequivocally brilliant.

Mr. Stephens poses a very serious challenge to global warming "science" this morning in today's Wall Street Journal, and this excerpt is particularly daunting:

"This ... is, of course, a forecast, not an empirical observation. But it raises a useful question: If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn't evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that global warming isn't happening. It does mean it isn't science."

No dispute here. Should there be?

And then he tosses us this gem:

"A light carbon footprint has become the 21st-century equivalent of sexual abstinence."

And then:

"Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?

"As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success."

Mr. Stephens ends strong referencing William James' stellar Varieties of Religious Experience, though I believe he fudges a bit what Mr. James meant by "sick-souled." Nevertheless, this is a tight and astounding essay, written to the pith, cutting to the marrow.

(If you have not read "Yellow Science" over at First Things, you are missing something special. Author James Kerian convincingly compares global warming science to yellow journalism. Fascinating.)

Peace.

BG