Losing Faith in God Particles

The "God Particle" is (almost) dead:

A few years ago, celebrated British physicist Stephen Hawking was widely reported in the press to have placed a provocative public bet that the LHC (along with all particle accelerators that preceded it) would never find the Higgs boson, the so-called “God particle” believed responsible for having imbued massive particles with their mass when the universe was very young...

...informal polls of physicists over the last decade have shown that an overwhelming majority believed that the existence of the Higgs was a foregone conclusion and that all that was needed was simply to run the LHC long enough...

But the Higgs boson never appeared...

And yesterday, August 22, ... CERN scientists declared that over the entire range of energy the Collider had explored—from 145 to 466 billion electron volts—the Higgs boson is excluded as a possibility with a 95% probability.

...there is still a 5% chance that the Higgs is hiding somewhere ... But the Higgs is quickly running out of places to hide.

Fortunately, particle physics isn't nearly as politicized as climate science, so Higgs boson skeptics probably needn't worry about being likened to racists. But the possibility of erosion of faith in science causes some to fret:

Another, less profound, but far more obnoxious, outcome is that people who choose to dismiss science altogether simply because it doesn’t have the all the answers (in this case, the answer to, “How did we come to exist in the first place?”) will have new ammunition for their arguments. So, don’t be surprised when CERN’s troublesome admission that Higgs boson is likely a myth is cited as a reason that global warming doesn’t exist.

I don't know anyone who's "dismissing science altogether," but the fact of the matter is that the hard work of science can be a miserably difficult and disappointing endeavor.

And science isn't democratic in the sense that it can be settled by comfortable consensus. Fueled by skepticism, science is never "settled."

Educate Us, Mitt

Mitt Romney, Global Warming Warrior

Mitt Romney wants to save the planet from hot air. "The world is getting warmer," he says:

"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.

"It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."

Okay, Mitt. I know a bit about science in general ― biology, chemistry, etc. ― but I'm not a climatologist, so please educate me on your personal beliefs. I have several burning questions. (Mitt supporters, feel free to chime in.)

First let me say that I know that hundreds of scientists from scores of countries have said man-made global warming is a real threat. But I also know that science isn't determined by consensus. At one time, it was clear to all but the most feeble minds that the sun rotates around the earth. Consensus changes. But maybe the scientists of today are correct. Maybe the earth is in serious trouble.

Without further ado, here are my questions:

• How cool do you want the world to be? What is the ideal temperature for the earth?
• What are the criteria for determining the ideal temperature of the earth?
• Would a modest increase in the temperature of the planet necessarily be bad? Are there any potential benefits?
• How can we ensure that efforts to stabilize the earth's temperature don't backfire, resulting in a larger-than-intended drop in the earth's average temperature?
• At what temperature would the earth be too cold?
• Can you be sure that reductions in CO₂ emissions will result in a significant and helpful change in temperatures?
• What if industrial and automotive CO₂ emissions are cut to nearly zero and the earth continues to warm...what do we do then?
• You said that "It's not called American warming, it's called global warming." I think you're unwittingly making a very good point with that statement. What if heavily industrialized nations manage to make painful cuts in CO₂ emissions only to see those cuts dwarfed by increases in emissions by China and other developing economies?
• How long should man try to control the world's average temperature?

A. For the next hundred years?

B. For the next thousand years?

C. Forever?

• Can we be absolutely confident that global climate changes aren't mostly the result of that giant fireball in the sky ― you know ― the sun?
• Scientists are very good at using statistical analysis to calculate certainty. Approximately how certain are we that we have the correct answers to global warming questions?

A. 50 percent?

B. 80 percent?

C. 95 percent?

Isn't it necessary to answer the questions above before we try to fashion expensive, untested solutions?

Mitt, please provide answers.

EXTRA CREDIT:

• Tell us what you think about alternative solutions to global warming (e.g., sulphur dioxide).

X-posted

BONUS:

What to Think about Global Warming

Delicious Irony: Redneck Global Warming Skeptics Terrorized and Killed By Tornados

When I drove to work on Wednesday night, I was buffeted by violent winds. I had left home early because the weather forecast called for tornadoes, and the in-motion radar images were ominous. The storm was headed for my path, but I arrived at my destination safely.

In the building where I work, dozens of people who lacked access to safe shelter spent the night huddled in the hallways. Back home, the rest of my little family spent the night in a closet while golf ball-sized hail bombarded the house and the booming sounds of exploding transformers could be heard in every direction.

When I made my way back home at daybreak, what I saw triggered a burst of expletives. The road was clear, but landscape was now barely recognizable. Guard rails were strewn around and crumpled like flimsy ribbons of aluminum foil. Homes and businesses had been reduced to piles of splinters and toothpicks. Cars where scattered along the side of the road like toys dropped from a toddler's clumsy hands. Several 18-wheelers had been pounded, mangled, and dumped in piles of their own contents.

In my home town, 95,000 EPB customers had lost power.

Hundreds of people across the South are now dead. Photographs cannot accurately capture the magnitude of the devastation. Fortunately for me, the lights are back on where I live, my home is in one piece, and all of my family members in Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama are clean, dry and intact.

The roads where I live are now jam-packed with friends and strangers rushing in to help the victims and clean up the mess...

Meanwhile, the loathsome toads at Think Progress think they've drawn a clever connection between the weather's wrath and the political views of the victims:

Storms Kill Over 250 Americans In States Represented By Climate Pollution Deniers

Today, news agencies are still tallying reports of deaths from the most devastating storm system in the United States in decades...

The congressional delegations of these states — Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, and Kentucky — overwhelmingly voted to reject the science that polluting the climate is dangerous. They are deliberately ignoring the warnings from scientists.

True to their grotesque form, left wing zealots are defending the indefensible in response to this unwashed tripe.

It's a new twist on the Pat Robertson model of Divine Justice... "Since the south has rejected the climate change hysteria, clearly they’re just asking for the wrath of Gaia, and should expect to be demolished."

Here's how you can help victims in need:

• Red Cross, or text REDCROSS to 90999 to donate $10 to relief efforts
• Samaritan’s Purse
• Text “Give” to 80888 to give $10 to Salvation Army relief efforts.

FLASHBACK:

“I root for hurricanes. When, courtesy of the Weather Channel, I see one forming in the ocean off the coast of Africa, I find myself longing for it to become big and strong — Mother Nature’s fist of fury, Gaia’s stern rebuke.”

– James Wolcott, “An Ignoble Confession,” Sept. 2004

Hat tip: McCain

X-posted at LCR

Tornadoes whipped up by wind, not climate

More discussion at Memeorandum

The Devastating Impact of Global Warming on The American South

Headline: Winter weather slams South with snow, icy roads...

Here's the early morning view from my neck of the woods, somewhere south of the Mason-Dixon line:

Does anyone know where to get some carbon credits?

X-posted

INFO: This was at about 04:30 this morning. We have several inches of snow on the ground now. This may be our biggest snowstorm in almost two decades.

Update

ATLANTA (AP) -- Several inches of snow and freezing rain will make the Monday morning commute for those forced to venture out nearly impossible in parts of the South, including Atlanta, where countless cars are stuck on impassable highways and roads while the world's busiest airport canceled thousands of flights.

Global Warming, A White Christmas & Extreme Taxes

(Click to enlarge)

We don't get a lot of snow where I live, but today we're getting blanketed. The last time we had a white Christmas (with any accumulation) was in 1969. That was several years before I was born.

So naturally, that got me thinking about the looming global warming crisis.

William Jacobson has a good question: "At what point in time should global warming have stopped?" So far, no brave global climate warrior has managed to come up with an answer.

Along the same lines, a Swedish free-market economist muses:

So what is there to say that the pre-industrial era climate is really the optimal climate? That the benefits of a possible warmer climates wouldn't outweigh the disadvantages? I have asked that many times to Al Gore supporters and either gotten no answer at all, or some list of alleged (and exaggerated) disadvantages that completely overlooked the benefits.

Perhaps it's some kind of semi-automated Freudian slip, but it looks like Memeorandum has come up with the most believable global warming prediction I've ever seen:

“Expect more extreme taxes thanks to global warming, say scientists”

Maybe this will become the cardinal 21st century corollary to Ben Franklin's famous aphorism:

"In this world, nothing is certain but death and taxes."

Whatever happens to the global climate, extreme taxes will almost inevitably follow!

X-posted

Global Cooling Heresy

As you probably know, Freakonomics (by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner) was a mega-bestseller.

"Hailed as genius, provocative, and even eye-popping, Freakonomics sold more than 4 million copies, spent over 2 years on the New York Times bestseller list, was translated in 35 languages, and has exploded into a global brand."

With their first book, when the authors were promoting the notion that the legalization of abortion in the '70s resulted in lower crime rates in the '90s, they were media darlings. Now that they're taking on the Church of Global Climate Change (with their new book, SuperFreakonomics) those forward thinking, open-minded liberals of the MSM are irate:

Levitt says the book contains "two things that might make people very, very mad." One of them is a skeptical look into the merits of car seats for children (they've got no complaint with backward-facing infant seats, just the forward-facing ones for older kids), the other is a skeptical look at the current approach toward tackling global warming.

Steven Levitt provides some interesting comments in this lovely video (global warming discussion starts at about 02:00):
Unpardonable

And here are some of the perfectly predictable reactions from the knee-jerk left:

• The Washington Post: "It's terrifically shoddy..."
• Matthew Yglesias: "Journalistic Malpractice"
• The New York Times: "...just plain, unforgivably wrong"
• The New Republic: "...lazy punditry...dressed up as 'contrarianism.'"

Sounds like it might be a great read. I'll let you know. SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance will be released on October 20, 2009.

Update:

Paul Krugman blocks comments on his global warming post.

Global Warming in SuperFreakonomics: The Anatomy of a Smear

More

SuperFreakonomics Freaking Out the Greens

Ich bin…busy? Twentieth Anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall doesn't excite Obama. Why is this not surprising?

The Mother Of All Showdowns with the RINO sellouts in the GOP Establishment (h/t The Other McCain)

It's Obama at his best: 7 Lies in under 2 Minutes. h/t: hdevo99

Obama Planning to Pollute

Apparently, in Obama's fantasy world, pollution could save the day:

The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.

John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.

"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."

So let's get this straight.  The jury is still out on "costly, unproven" missile defense systems, but pollution particles are a good idea?

More

Obama looks at climate engineering.

Obama’s missile defense word games

Obama's Fantasy Foreign Policy

Dentist's protest stirs a tempest in a teapot.

Interesting Stories

Fashion designer defends fur industry saying 'beasts' would kill us if we didn't kill them.

What happened to the Democrats' plan to end the culture of corruption?  Bill Richardson Withdraws Nomination as Commerce Secretary.  New Mexico Gov. facing federal grand jury investigation into whether he exchanged contracts for contributions

Bush 41: Jeb Bush for President

EU's new figurehead believes climate change is a myth

Blu-ray’s Fuzzy Future

Google Hopes to Open a Trove of Little-Seen Books

I'm sure the world will be a better place when Russia takes over: Russia wants warships stationed around the world.

Writing songs between dissertation chapters and frenetic bouts of southern California traffic, John (vocals/guitars) and Kael (guitars/keys/machines) were simply looking for an aesthetic and rigorous diversion. Two or three songs into the process, however, things started sounding incredible--much too good to have come from Kael's apartment bedroom. Eventually Heather (additional vocals/keys) began adding some beautiful harmonies, and FPF became the brilliant blend of indie-tronic pop that dazzles on every track in their debut album, "Dynamo."

blog·or·rhea 

Pronunciation:

\ˌblȯ-gə-ˈrē-ə, ˌblä-\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

New Latin

: excessive and often incoherent blogging or bloginess

A Test For Internet Addiction Disorder - Take At Your Own Risk

Questions for the Global Warming Experts

We hear a lot about the global warming crisis.   We're told we're living on a planet in peril.  I freely admit that I'm too ignorant to put forth an authoritative opinion on the topic of global climate change.  I have no training or education in meteorology or climatology.  If Global Warming is a religion, I'm an agnostic. 

I know that hundreds of scientists from scores of countries have said global warming is a real threat. But I also know that science isn't determined by consensus.  At one time, it was clear to all but the most feeble minds that the sun rotates around the earth. Consensus changes. But maybe the scientists of today are correct.  Maybe the earth is in serious trouble.  If so, now is the time to ask some very important follow-up questions.

• How cool do we want the world to be?  What is the ideal temperature for the earth? 
  
• What are the criteria for determining the ideal temperature of the earth?
  
• Would a modest increase in the temperature of the planet necessarily be bad? Are there any potential benefits?
  
• How can we ensure that efforts to stabilize the earth's temperature don't backfire, resulting in a larger than intended drop in the earth's average temperature?
  
• At what temperature would the earth be too cold?
  
• Can we be sure that reductions in CO₂ emissions will result in a significant and helpful change in temperatures?
  
• What if industrial and automotive CO₂ emissions are cut to nearly zero and the earth continues to warm...what do we do then?
  
• How long should humans try to control the world's average temperature? 
  

A.  For the next hundred years? 
B.  For the next thousand years?

C.  Forever?

• Can we be absolutely confident that global climate changes aren't mostly the result of that giant fireball in the sky, you know, the sun?
  
• Scientists are very good at using statistical analysis to calculate certainty.  Approximately how certain are we that we have the correct answers to global warming questions?
  

A.  50 percent?
B.  80 percent?
C.  95 percent?

• Isn't it necessary to answer the questions above before we try to fashion solutions?

Someone who understands global warming, please provide answers.

More:

Two hundred whales prayerfully wait for the results of global warming.

Thinking globally but not clearly?

Global Warming? Hot Air. 

Let Cooler Heads Prevail.

An Inconvenient Price

Is Global Warming Always Bad?

Global Warming? Bring it On!