If it's Friday, it must be global warming

From Judge Richard Posner (7th Circuit), guest blogging at Lawrence Lessig's blog (UPDATE: Also read our own Edward Underscore, below):

At last, high-level Administration acknowledgment that global warming is real, and that human activity (mainly the burning of fossil fuels, principally oil, natural gas, and coal, and deforestation in Third World countries) is a principal cause because such activity emits carbon dioxide. (See also Times article.)

There will continue to be a component of the scientific community that rejects (or interprets differently) the data that suggests that global warming is a largely human endeavor. That's fine -- indeed, to allow for different, defensible views of the data is the very practice of science.

We need to remember two things, however: First, the Bush Administration's report on global warming represents the orthodox view on the matter. The orthodox view is the orthodox view for a reason: It has convinced most of the experts in the field that it is the best interpretation of the available evidence. It's more than a mere preponderance or best guess; it's the scientific equilavant of "best practices".

Second, the relevative merits of the orthodox view and any competing theory cannot be accurately judged by a layperson. I know, I know, you're a polymath; consider this, however: You know more about your job than other folks outside of your field. Indeed, you probably know so much more about your job than those other folks that, when laypeople opine on your field, you may roll your eyes. It may even be difficult for you to debate a layperson as to the merits of a certain aspect of your job because, however smart or well-read they are, they just don't have the background to assess the arguments. Swallow your pride, and assume it's the same way here. Assume -- if only for the sake of argument -- that there's a reason why Ph.D.'s have to spend years and years studying in their field to graduate, and then spend years more doing post-graduate work.

So, what is the layperson to do (and this includes me, most members of Congress, John Kerry, George Bush, and 99.9% of the readers of this blog)? Put it this way: If God plays cards with the Universe, betting on the orthodox view is akin to doubling down on an eleven when the dealer's showing a six. You can't accurately judge the merits of the debate (even the experts can't, though they have more information than you -- e.g., they may know that the dealer's not hold a 5). There's a bit of a risk. You're certainly not guaranteed a win. You may even have a hunch that the dealer's hiding a five. But you gotta do it. You just gotta do it.

(Similar logic applied to the assumption that Saddam had WMDs before the War in Iraq, IMHO.)

Comments

[Fredrik Nyman]

Actually, there's a second reason why something becomes orthodoxy in science: that's where the money is.

[Fredrik Nyman]

And a third reason: peer pressure. Especially in a very political field, such as climate change. See Lomborg, Bjørn.

[hilzoy]

Actually, while things do become hot research topics because that's where the money is, research results generally don't become orthodox for that reason, unless they are in a fairly obscure field where a few industry-sponsored studies are enough to constitute an "orthodoxy". And global warming is pretty clearly not such a field.

[von]

there's a second reason why something becomes orthodoxy in science: that's where the money is.

As to this (and having been involved in the representation of drug and medical device companies, as well as university researchers), two thoughts: (1) Folks who spend money on research expect result. If they don't get results, the money generally goes elsewhere -- particularly if there's an "unorthodox" alternative that looks promising. Everyone's chasing the next big thing, and there is a relatively high tolerance for risk: Two elements that contribute to numerous, fruitless attacks on the orthodoxy (every new breakthrough is accompanied by dozens of large and small failures).

(2) What the heck does this have to do with the debate over Global Warming? If anything, the money's on the other ("unorthodox") side of this one.

[Slartibartfast]

But you gotta do it. You just gotta do it.

There are hazards to this. See: phlogiston, ether wind, and epicycles.

[von]

There are hazards to this. See: phlogiston, ether wind, and epicycles.

Sure. Of course, phlogiston, ether wind, and epicycles all explained the available evidence better than any alternative at the time they were pre-eminent.* Epicycles, for example, did a pretty good job of predicting planetary movement -- using a competing Earth-centric model would have been a mistake.

von

*To the extent that they weren't purely made up (ether wind), i.e., they weren't science fiction.

[Hal]

Similar logic applied to the assumption that Saddam had WMDs before the War in Iraq, IMHO.

Except for the fact that we have infinitely more ability to actually determine whether this was the case or not. In fact, we had just had the most intrusive inspection regime operating in the country, with over 600 inspections that had turned up JACK.

I mean, I agree with your post up until you brought in the non sequitur of Iraqi WMDs and the Tiffin phantasms of their existence. Kind of pulling a fast one, there, imho. Basically comparing the belief that Iraq had WMDs as "orthodox knowledge" which given what we know to be true (before the war, not after it, when we knew there was jack). It's clear that even before the war, there was highly likely there was jack.

And I'm not even throwing in all the facts we now know, such as "curveball" and other INC sources which went into the determination that the WMDS existed. It's like saying the data used to show global warming is based on a lefty hippy (who is a secret informer) who swears up n' down that it's true, rather than basing the decision on actual data and well vetted theoretical models and simulations.

It's really a disservice to humanity and science to make this casual comparison at the end there. Gives support to a patently invalid example.

Unless, of course, I've misunderstood your last bit about WMDs. . .

[carsick]

Are you saying the unorthodox view is that faith in God will get us out of this mess we're creating? ie. Bet on God vs. the scientifc principles that guide the natural universe?

On second thought:

"If God plays cards with the Universe, betting on the orthodox view is akin to doubling down on an eleven when the dealer's showing a six. "

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

[sidereal]

That's gambler-speak for 'if you don't do it, you're an idiot, even if you're not certain'.

And Slarti, for every memorably incorrect orthodoxy (mmm. . electron soup), there are a massive stack of correct orthodoxies that you don't even think about. From the time you wake up to the time you drop off, you interact with and depend on a million correct orthodoxies.

That said, the climate is a fantastically complex system. Personally, I'm much more interested in the effects of massive deforestation and its effect on the co2/o2 exchange rate, but I'll leave it to the experts.

I know, I know, you're a polymath; consider this, however: You know more about your job than other folks outside of your field. Indeed, you probably know so much more about your job than those other folks that, when laypeople opine on your field, you may roll your eyes. It may even be difficult for you to debate a layperson as to the merits of a certain aspect of your job because, however smart or well-read they are, they just don't have the background to assess the arguments. Swallow your pride, and assume it's the same way here.

Can this please be permanently posted somewhere where every blogger and blog commenter has to read it daily?

[sidereal]

"there are a"

Never has number disagreement been so concisely illustrated.

[Slartibartfast]

there are a massive stack of correct orthodoxies that you don't even think about

Now, if you'd just divulge the rest of the contents of my head, there are things I myself am interested in finding out about me.

[Slartibartfast]

Ah. "You", as in "one".

Right.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Sure. Of course, phlogiston, ether wind, and epicycles all explained the available evidence better than any alternative at the time they were pre-eminent.*"

Except that often they did not explain the available evidence better than any alternative at the time they were pre-eminent. The available evidence which disagreed was discarded.

As for global warming, it is nearly undisputed that the world has been much much hotter than it is now, and this took place before the industrial revolution.

It is not well understood HOW MUCH human action contributes to global warning.

It is not well understood WHAT ACTIONS (if any) would be effective in substantially halting or reversing global warming.

It is not obvious that the benefits of global warming (what you didn't know about the benefits?) outweigh the drawbacks.

It is not clear that the benefits of removing the human contribution to global warming will outweigh the benefits that industrialization brings.

For example the all important Kyoto treaty has been estimated by the UN (a Kyoto supporter) to slow the rate of global warming by less than a year. It has an estimated cost of whole percentages of our GDP. For people who complain about the slow growth of the Bush administration, think about reducing it yet another percentage or two. That makes for an economic contraction.

Scientific consensus on global warming doesn't give you what you think it does.

[von]

Unless, of course, I've misunderstood your last bit about WMDs. . .

Hal -- The pre-war consensus view, flawed as it was, was that Saddam had WMDs. (See the UN, US, the UK, France, Russia, et al.) A non-expert was entitled to rely upon it (whether experts were so entitled is another questions).

Thanks for clarifying for Carsick, Sidereal, and sorry for any confusion. I'm a bit of a fan of the ole Blackjack game, and I tend to assume everyone else is as well.

[carsick]

While going down hill on a rollercoaster on a hot day, the cool breeze is certainly a benefit. The fact that the rollercoaster is a twisted broken tangle at the bottom should not be held against the cool beneficial breeze at this moment.

Sebastian
Neccessity is the mother of invention. America used to lead in invention. Does intentional denial place us a lap back in the innovation race? Probably.
Growth usually comes from innovation.

[carsick]

Von
I understand the Blackjack reference. I wasn't sure and still am not sure - who was God and who was the Universe and who was the Dealer in your analogy.
Are you saying you'd bet on God against the application scietific observation?
Do you know what outcome God is looking for?
Could you cite and link?

(just joking on that last part)

[Slartibartfast]

I think he's stretching the Einstein/God does not play dice bit. Actually, stretching it out, rolling it up just so and then snapping us all on the ass with it, leaving a big red mark.

[sidereal]

"I'm a bit of a fan of the ole Blackjack game"

Always found it a bit too mechanical. And when I sit down and play divergent from 'the book' just to shake things up, the person to my right always gets pissed off. It's degenerated to slot-machine levels of interaction.

I'm currently in a 7-stud phase. Fine game.

[rilkefan]

von: "Hal -- The pre-war consensus view, flawed as it was, was that Saddam had WMDs. (See the UN, US, the UK, France, Russia, et al.)"

Here (as usual) you elide the issue of what "WMD" means. And you are imprecise about the time-frame of "pre-war" - does that include the time when the latest inspections took place? And you ignore the extent to which the "consensus" view was in fact largely generated by our view (and not reflective of broad agreement inside the govts in question whatever the top said) - whether this could have been known by an outside observer is debatable. In the meantime, I think I've seen statements from Russia saying they weren't confused. Ditto for Israel.

In any case, conflating hard science and govt opinion is in my view just silly.

[Edward]

OK, so all this blackjack talk has accomplished nothing so much as to convince me I should stick with slots, but on the topic of what to do with the information that humans are causing global warming, it seems we have a good precedent on what our first steps should be: how we addressed the hole in the ozone layer.

Broadly speaking:

The 1990 Clean Air Act (something else Bush pooh-poohs) includes "a schedule for ending United States production of ozone-destroying chemicals and provisions for speeding up the phase out schedule if that is necessary."

It's this sort of direct, immediate, flexible action the administration could be taking on global warming. So long as its flexible, the needs of business can be considered somewhat as well. But when it comes to a coal executive buying this third Porsche vs. NYC looking like Venezia, the choice is an easy one for me.

Another step is to educate the public. Now, ironically, there are groups already in place well suited to do this, but I imagine Bush would rather gnaw off his left arm than suck up to the environmental groups, so moving on to plan B, some regulated warnings (like we have on cigarette packages or aerosol cans) would be a start.

Finally, the "Manhattan Project" style research to search for alternative, cleaner fuels should stop being the stuff of fantasy and be funded. It's got to be cheaper than thousands of new bridges along our coastlines.

[sidereal]

"Do you know what outcome God is looking for?
Could you cite and link?"

You joke, I provide!

12 I looked when He opened the sixth seal, and behold,[5] there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon[6] became like blood. 13And the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs when it is shaken by a mighty wind. 14Then the sky receded as a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved out of its place.

[sidereal]

"Finally, the "Manhattan Project" style research to search for alternative, cleaner fuels should stop being the stuff of fantasy and be funded."

Private funding is going fairly well. There was a cool article in the last MIT Technology Review about a new photovoltaic material that you can just print off in strips, making it orders of magnitude cheaper than current solar cels.

Also, science friday on NPR last week (maybe week before) had some good guests from the oil companies. They know what side the bread's buttered on. They're investing billions in renewable energy.

None of this excuses Bush's galling lack of commitment to environmental stewardship, but we're not completely doomed.

[carsick]

sidereal
Thanks. So according to the Gospel it looks like Science is observing God's Will then.

To continue the mixed analogies: God raised the Universe two fallen figs. The Dealer lit a cigarette and said, "Hit me."

[Blogbudsman]

Sebastian, appreciate your moderately accurate statements, they tend to be ignored by the Henney Penney sector. Although, I like some of von's approach. There is so much we don't know - we know that - so what should we be doing? - something! The whole Kyoto excercise caused visions of Lilliputions restraining Gulliver. I still believe a large part of the world would like to see the big guy fall. When you hear that a couple volcanos can reproduce several generations of humankinds contribution to 'warming' or that some sections of the globe are actually cooling; and of course we've all experienced what zealousy does to reasoning. Moderation, from both ends, should be the order of the day.

[von]

1. Rilkefan, we'll continue to agree to disagree on whether it was reasonable to believe Iraq had WMDs, but your current criticism seems mostly answered by the second sentence of my comment:

The pre-war consensus view, flawed as it was, was that Saddam had WMDs. (See the UN, US, the UK, France, Russia, et al.) A non-expert was entitled to rely upon it (whether experts were so entitled is another questions).

2. As for conflating social science (pre-war intelligence assessments) with hard science (global warming): The risk of being wrong and the presence of bona fide experts are the common denominators.

3. Sorry, Carsick. Metaphor mileage varies.

[carsick]

I know the Dealer does ask to be hit (he's the dealer afterall) but at the moment I wrote it it sounded better to say "Hit me."

[sidereal]

In the context of God being a player, the dealer requesting a hit worked out quite nicely.

[Slartibartfast]

the dealer requesting a hit worked out quite nicely

Don't...bo...gart...that JOINT, my friend.

[carsick]

"On environmental issues, Mr. Bush appeared unfamiliar with an administration report delivered to Congress on Wednesday that indicated that emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases were the only likely explanation for global warming over the last three decades. Previously, Mr. Bush and other officials had emphasized uncertainties in understanding the causes and consequences of global warming.

The new report was signed by Mr. Bush's secretaries of energy and commerce and his science adviser. Asked why the administration had changed its position on what causes global warming, Mr. Bush replied, "Ah, we did? I don't think so."

He's confused by your analogy as well von.

[rilkefan]

von, I read your second sentence above, but I think my post above addresses the point - see the scare quotes around consensus, for example, and the claim about Russia and Israel.

"As for conflating social science (pre-war intelligence assessments) with hard science (global warming): The risk of being wrong and the presence of bona fide experts are the common denominators."

My gf is a social scientist and has harrowing things to say about analysis procedures, the misuse of statistics, etc in her field; but I wouldn't belittle social science by calling govt threat assessment that...

[praktike]

As for global warming, it is nearly undisputed that the world has been much much hotter than it is now, and this took place before the industrial revolution.

Eh. So?

It is not well understood HOW MUCH human action contributes to global warning.

Well, the report at least has established that the U.S. government again believes that warming since the 1970s cannot all be explained by natural factors and thus human causes must be to blame.

It is not well understood WHAT ACTIONS (if any) would be effective in substantially halting or reversing global warming.

Well, if we know what is causing the problem, presumably reducing those causes will mitigate the temperature increase.

It is not obvious that the benefits of global warming (what you didn't know about the benefits?) outweigh the drawbacks.

In the long run, probably true but the adjustment costs could be large indeed. If you live in Bangladesh or New Orleans you may not be mollified by an uptick in Candian wheat production. Ditto if you run a large reinsurance company.

It is not clear that the benefits of removing the human contribution to global warming will outweigh the benefits that industrialization brings.

It is not clear that substantially reducing the human contribution to global warming involves any kind of deindustrialization. It may well involve combinations of nuclear power, carbon sequestration, and other technological fixes.

[JC]

Here's some other new research about solar energy:

Link here

I've also discovered this site (How to Save the World) I'm linking to in the last 2 weeks.

If you want to look at the latest in attempting to be practical about green business/technology/politics, by a smart guy, this looks like a good place to start. (Not that you have to agree with what is said, but the wealth of material is amazing.) I urge people to take a look around.

[praktike]

Two more good green blogs:

Green Car Congress

World Changing

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Praktike, your answers aren't helpful at all.

In response to HOW MUCH, you say:

Well, the report at least has established that the U.S. government again believes that warming since the 1970s cannot all be explained by natural factors and thus human causes must be to blame.

'Not All' isn't much of a standard. Are we saying 0.000001% or 99%. It we be somewhat useful to know which before taking drastic action wouldn't it.

In response to WHAT ACTIONS, you write:

Well, if we know what is causing the problem, presumably reducing those causes will mitigate the temperature increase.

Do you fail to see how this is impacted by your non-answer to the HOW MUCH problem? Though to be fair it isn't just your non-answer. It is not a resolved scientific question. Presumably reducing those causes will mitigate the tempreature increase, but if there is a large natural component, global warming will continue anyway and we will have to learn to adapt to it anyway.

Which bears directly on your transition costs issue.

"It is not clear that substantially reducing the human contribution to global warming involves any kind of deindustrialization."

Perhaps not. But it is clear that reducing industrial output is in fact the method that currently at issue with Kyoto. And with respect to nuclear power, why even discuss it while a huge portion of US Kyoto supporters would also hugely resist a shift to nuclear power?

[Anarch]

I've a few minutes to spare so I thought I'd point out that this...

(Similar logic applied to the assumption that Saddam had WMDs before the War in Iraq, IMHO.)

...isn't really a valid comparison. To be more precise, you're failing to allow for first- versus second-order reasoning, thereby undercutting the arguments against Saddam and the possession of WMDs.

You're correct, IMO, about the first-order reasoning: the layperson certainly does not possess the requisite technical knowledge to properly analyze, let alone critique, the information surrounding either climate change or the Saddam/WMD issue. On the latter issue, however, there were demonstrable second-order inferences that could be drawn and -- this is key -- which did not require technical expertise to evaluate. To pick one very simple example, if "the pre-war consensus view" were valid, the inspections which were directed to locations by the United States* should have produced something. The repeated absence of such confirmations allows one to draw the inference that the experts, despite their expertise, were wrong.

[Is that inference airtight? Of course not. Leaving aside the obvious problem of finite verification of an infinitary quantifier -- "It is not the case that Saddam possesses WMD", a negated existential -- it's possible that he was moving WMD around, or that the experts possessed global but not local knowledge, or what have you. The repeated failures, however, accompanied by an absence of substantive evidence for the contrary propositions, do permit a lay-accessible inference that the experts were incorrect.]

The reason your comparison breaks down is that there is not, to the best of my knowledge, a comparable second-order inference for climate change; at least, not one within a useful time-frame. That is, supposing the advice of the experts were followed, how would this manifest itself? What lay-accessible verifications could there be of the experts' failings? Could such an inference be drawn within any reasonable time-frame, or would it take so long to become apparent to the layperson that by such time all these considerations would be rendered moot? Absent the ability to conduct (lay-accessible) second-order reasoning,** we're forced to rely on experts for the whole shebang.

Put very crudely: with WMD, I was able to tell, to a reasonable degree of certainty, when the experts were full of shit. With climate change, I can't -- and I don't think any layperson can.

* Note the second-order nature of this particular proposition: I cannot analyze the information that led the experts to the conclusion that a particular location should be targeted but, having been targeted and inspected by the experts, I am capable of analyzing the (very crude) datum, "No WMD were found at that location."

** The reason for this boils down, IMO, to the logical complexity of the propositions under consideration. [Well, given my profession, it would, wouldn't it?] The "Saddam/WMD" issue is a Pi-1 statement (a negated existential); I haven't thought too much about how to code "climate change" as a quantified computable/verifiable proposition, but it's Pi-2 or Sigma-3 at best, the logical equivalent of "orders of magnitude" harder to analyze. That's leaving aside all other kinds of problems like the relative difficulties of processing the information, the ability of experts to exert control over the scenario, the ability of laypeople to correlate those exertions with their consequences and so forth.

[hilzoy]

To second Anarch's comments: as of, say, October 2002, I assumed that Saddam Hussein had biological and chemical weapons, for basically the same reasons as everyone else: he had had them in the past, he seemed to want to keep them, and I didn't trust him at all about (a) anything and (b) having destroyed them in particular. So when the government then said that it knew he had them, I tended to believe them. But as of, say, Feb. 2003, I was more skeptical. We were telling the inspectors where to look, Blix seemed to me quite competent, and nothing was being found. So I thought: either (a) we know where they are but are not telling the inspectors, which made no sense unless one thought we wanted to go to war so much that we would actually conceal this information, which was too cynical for me, or (b) we don't know where they are. I thought: (b) is consistent with having some other sort of intelligence that leads us to think Saddam has those weapons, but at least to non-technically-expert me, it would seem that such other intelligence would be more likely to be dubious: things like someone saying something that might be about chemical weapons, or someone purchasing something that might be used for making the relevant sort of vat or centrifuge, is always more dubious than having gotten the sort of information that lets you nail down a specific weapon and a specific place. (It would be different if the CIA got, say, a receipt from "WMD R Us", but as far as I know the relevant kinds of information don't come in such nice clear forms.) So at that point I began to wonder whether we did have any good information, despite having no reluctance at all to thinking that he had such weapons.

[Terry Karney]

Re 2) Speaking as a professional in my field, that was a bad bet.

The general view in my slice of Military Intelligence wa that that he might have some mustard, and perhaps some chlorine, or phosgene. But Bio, not likely, and Nuclear, not a chance.

The more effetive agents (VX and Sarin) were not much more likely than Nuclear.

Which is what Scott Ritter was saying, and the UN Inspectors.

So yes, the way to bet was against it, but the administration was supppressing the orthodox view, as it did with Global Warming.

TK

[Slartibartfast]

The more effetive agents (VX and Sarin) were not much more likely than Nuclear.

Didn't we find at least a couple of Sarin binary shells in Iraq? How could they not have Sarin, if we found some? Maybe it just fell there. In short, if the orthodoxy thought there was no Sarin or mustard gas in Iraq, the orthodoxy was dead wrong.

But Bio, not likely

Anthrax is not bio? We know they had anthrax. Nassty viruses, though, maybe not.

And we know they were attempting to assemble nuclear fuel refinement equipment. Pretending otherwise is unsupportable. Maybe those calutrons were just giant fridge magnets, though.

[Anarch]

In short, if the orthodoxy thought there was no Sarin or mustard gas in Iraq, the orthodoxy was dead wrong.

The orthodoxy -- if that's even a meaningful term in this context -- was that Saddam probably had some surplus biochemical weapons left over from the Iran-Iraq war, but not in any significant quantities. [That was certainly the conventional wisdom amongst the more attentive (or at least, more nuanced) anti-war types; beats me whether they were part of some mythic "orthodoxy".] I've seen nothing to suggest that those sarin shells were part of a larger supply, nor indeed that anyone had the faintest idea that they were even there.

[Scott Ritter, in fact, has an argument at the Christian Science Monitor that the shells were not part of some weapons cache. The absence of any further discoveries tends to support his contention, although I'll leave the scrutiny of his analysis to your more-expert eyes.]

And we know they were attempting to assemble nuclear fuel refinement equipment.

In what time-frame? I know that they were mucking around with calutrons (or least, they were alleged to have been mucking around with calutrons; my trust on such matters is at an all-time low) through the late '90s, but I haven't found any references to an ongoing program of calutron enrichment past 1999.

[In fact, my cursory re-Googling on the subject indicates that there were no major calutron plans in action after 1991 (when Tarmiya was, uh, "shut down"). Do you have cites to the contrary?]

[Slartibartfast]

I've seen nothing to suggest that those sarin shells were part of a larger supply, nor indeed that anyone had the faintest idea that they were even there.

Or that they weren't. Indeed.

I've read Ritter's article, and it's full of unsubstantiated suppositions. Case in point:

If the 155-mm shell was a "dud" fired long ago - which is highly likely - then it would not be evidence of the secret stockpile of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that the Bush administration used as justification to invade Iraq.

Which is followed by some discussion of how a dud could occur, accompanied by exactly zero evidence that this was in fact such a dud, or even any argument that lends weight to that supposition.

As for the calutrons, no, I don't claim they have them. Just that they had them, and that indicates a level of intention. For all we know, they still have some left. Not that one or two are all that dangerous, but if the inspectors can't positively account for the calutrons (case in point: have the ones photographed by David Kay's inspection team been located, yet?), who's to say what else has been squirreled away?

[Anarch]

Or that they weren't. Indeed.

I'm not sure that I can cope with someone channelling Glenn Reynolds this early in the morning. I'm not sure anyone (myself included) can cope with me deconstructing the fallacious equivalency underlying this statement at any hour of the day. Shall we chalk this up to depleted caffeine levels and pretend it never happened?

As for the calutrons, no, I don't claim they have them. Just that they had them, and that indicates a level of intention.

Dude, if all that had been claimed was that Saddam wanted nuclear weapons, I doubt anyone left or right would have disagreed. When you invoke the calutrons in this context, though, you're implicitly claiming that Saddam still possessed nuclear capabilities -- not just intent, capabilities -- at the time of the Iraq War. I therefore challenge you to produce positive evidence (not the negative evidence you've thus far invoked) to bolster that assertion.

[Yes, yes, I know you didn't make the claim explicitly. You're free to claim that you didn't invoke it implicitly too; in that case, I ask you to then acknowledge irrelevance of the calutrons to this discussion.]

For all we know, they still have some left.

For all we know, Al Qaeda's really being run by malevolent fairies intent on dominating the global cheese market.

Can we please start invoking some standards of proof above the mere trivial?

who's to say what else has been squirreled away?

That we've found? It rhymes with jack. And spit.

[Slartibartfast]

I'm not sure that I can cope with someone channelling Glenn Reynolds this early in the morning.

It was deliberate, FTR.

Shall we chalk this up to depleted caffeine levels and pretend it never happened?

Whose caffeine levels are we talking about, here? I merely point out that no evidence has been discovered that points to either conclusion. Is it your contention that yours is the logical default? If so, please support that contention.

For all we know, Al Qaeda's really being run by malevolent fairies intent on dominating the global cheese market.

I'm fairly certain there were no cease-fire agreements with AQ involving fairies and cheese. I could be wrong on this, though.

I therefore challenge you to produce positive evidence (not the negative evidence you've thus far invoked) to bolster that assertion.

We have evidence that they existed after the war (GWI). We have no evidence that they've been destroyed, so it's reasonable to conclude that they haven't.

That we've found? It rhymes with jack. And spit.

Except for the Sarin, and a few other things. Google is your friend.

Look, I'm not making the point here that Iraq had a vast arsenal of this stuff; my comments were to correct a previous poster's assertion that they didn't have any at all. And I'm more than a little annoyed at your tone, here. I haven't done anything at all to earn it, as far as I can tell.

[Slartibartfast]

I merely point out that no evidence has been discovered that points to either conclusion.

Actually, what I mean by this is no conclusions are pointed to, other than one sarin-filled artillery shell has been found. You need to get that I'm not claiming that one shell equals an arsenal.