One of my children sent me a link this morning to an interesting article about Freeman Dyson, and in particular about his take on the climate change issue. Find it here.
I have always found Freeman Dyson to be a rather intriguing person (one of those beyond-brilliant types who kept his balance), and this article might explain why. (Father of six, grandfather of sixteen for starters.) The article is quite long, and you'll need to be able to access the New York Times online to read it (it's free), but I predict that you might find it worth the trouble.
Here is one quote from early on in the article that gives a look at the kind of person Dyson is: "The purpose of thinking about the future is not to predict it but to raise people’s hopes.”
Seemed to suit our purposes here.
By the way, I haven't given up on my hope that you will think about discussing purity and virtue in this forum.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I've actually been reading about Freeman Dyson lately. (I've been playing a video game where the protagonist is partially based on him, believe it or not.) I don't have time at the moment to read the article, but I read the wikipedia summary of his environmental positions about two weeks ago. If I recall, it reminded me of Bjorn Lomborg's argument that we're wasting time and money on the environment when it could be used towards more charitable ends.
ReplyDeleteI sort of wring my hands whenever global warming comes up. Most of us aren't scientists (including myself), and I feel like the issue is far too complex to be reduced to bullet points or pulp-science novels. It troubles me whenever an argument that needs to be based on empirical, scientific observation gets colored by ideologies and politics. It seems like most people who doubt global warming have pre-existing beliefs that are incompatible with regulation (belief in market self-regulation, distrust of scientific research, apprehension towards alarmism, etc.) The same is probably true in the other direction: many climate change believers would probably have an interest in preserving the environment even if an extinction-level event (or something similar) wasn't a threat.
What does interest me, however, are Dyson's religious beliefs. He seems to be of the Henry Eyring brand of scientist, capable of recognizing that God and science are not incompatible, and that truth can be gleaned through means other than the scientific method.
I hear you Derrick. I have serious issues with global warming debate. Politically, the issue bothers me from all sides. It’s hard for me to believe that telling people not to ruin the earth is a valid political issue. But then again, it’s difficult to understand how someone like Sun Chips can advertise themselves as “green” because they purchase carbon tax credits. Clearly, there must be some regulation, but too many restrictions may stifle economic growth. Like most political, moral, and ethical issues, I believe the important question is in where you draw the line, not in arguing whether a line should or should not be drawn.
ReplyDeleteAs a science student, I have seen a lot of evidence for climate change. However, the extent to which we can predict the impending doom of our planet seems to require a lot of information. I’m not totally convinced that current models of climate change can do that (but maybe this means I should look at them harder). In other words, I am convinced that humans are having a significant impact on the world’s changing climate. I’m just not sure that I fully understand what that means.
I think one of the problems with the current debate over climate change is the inability of individuals to find answers. I would love to know more, but I can’t put it at the top of my to-do list right now. Maybe in a decade I will be able to learn more. But it might be too late. Understanding the environment requires time, resources, intelligence, and a seemingly never-ending pile of climatological data. Therefore, I rely a lot on the opinions of experts who spend their lives studying this phenomenon. Although there are dissenters, it seems that there is a general consensus among climatologists that climate change is at least partially caused by humans. Until I see a change in this conclusion, I can’t see how it would hurt to trust the experts while remaining open-minded about dissent.
This makes me wonder if this issue should be considered part of a much larger question. When do we trust the academy, and when do we reject its conclusions? Perhaps Freeman Dyson’s experience has led him to believe that you should never trust academic opinion without significant evaluation. I think there is quite a bit of truth to that. However, I also think that there must be ways we can determine truth without having the expertise of a scientist. I would be interested to hear how others might try to find truth in academic research outside their area of expertise.
The evidence for continuing acceleration of human-caused climate change and potential catastrophic effects is nearly incontrovertible. Björn Lomborg is currently peddling the idea that fighting it isn't cost effective, but ten years ago he was peddling the idea that it didn't exist at all. When he published his first book, The Skeptical Environmentalist -- remember, Lomborg is a political scientist, not an environmental researcher -- the scientists in the field were so upset by his distortion of their research that six major researchers took to the pages of Scientific American to blast him for his intellectual dishonesty and selective use of results to support his pre-determined opinions.
ReplyDeleteSince that time it's become less feasible to criticize global warming as a theory because the media has realized just how overwhelming the evidence is. So Lomborg has changed his tune to the idea that fighting climate change isn't cost-effective. But he's not making an argument in good faith here. He was willing to vastly distort the scientific record a decade ago to try to show that climate change didn't exist and now he's just choosing to pick current most convenient method of fighting environmental preservation. He's a dishonest ideologue and of a piece with the vast majority of his allies.
Dyson is a much different matter and since he's a qualified scientist with distinguished academic record he's entitled to speak his mind and I expect that his arguments are made in good faith. However, it's important to note that he's not a climate change expert and that the only reason his commentary is elevated to being discussed is because climate change has become a political issue. If a respected climatologist went on TV and tried to make comments challenging the reigning scientific consensus on quantum electrodynamics, he'd be laughed out of the community. Dyson has managed to avoid that so far because there is political demand for his opinions, and dishonest ideologues who oppose environmental regulation of any kind -- no matter the evidence or the validity of their arguments -- can take his comments and wield them as a political weapon in opposition to scientific consensus.
Laughed out of which "community"? And do we care if somebody "laughs"? There are quite a number of people challenging the "reigning scientific consensus on quantum electrodynamics" these days. Always have been. Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein. Do we care if a consensus is "reigning"? Do we care about consensus, for that matter? Why? If my high school chemistry or physic teacher were to suddenly appear and attempt to make the kinds of scientific pronouncements I heard at Davis High School in 1964 much laughing would occur in the scientific community.
ReplyDeleteSo ... your point is that Dyson doesn't know what he's talking about? Would it be different if his distinguished record were not "academic"?
Let's push this thing to the wall, from both directions, because I just happen to know that a scientist I love very much (a chemical engineer, not a climatologist ... but ... what IS a climate-change expert?) is going to take serious issue here, and I'm getting prepared.
I'm also thinking that it's almost impossible to discuss this issue dispassionately, that is to say, non-ideologically. Am I wrong?
I think that, in matters of scientific theory, discovery, and exploration, consensus does matter. It's how any theory is built. In matters of doctrine, morality, and virtue, however, only one opinion matters. In matters of public policy...I have a headache.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Christian about dishonesty. Also, I find it interesting that, evidently, one has to be a climate change expert in order to have a valid opinion about environmental policy nowadays.
Dishonesty, in my opinion, is not changing one's opinions in light of better evidence: it is criticizing those who do so. Incidentally, Lomborg's most recent iteration is an argument about the fundamental aim of environmental policy: if our aim is to save and protect human life (which he believes it should be) than the Kyoto treaty (and anything like it) might not be a good way to do it. His opinion was/is (perhaps I've missed his most recent book) that the technology to make any substantial difference isn't here yet, so let's invest in it and invest now. And in the meantime, why don't we pick the low hanging fruit of life-saving policy like focusing on treating diseases, feeding starving nations, making use of natural flood plains, shoring up coastal cities, etc. He asserts that Kyoto is costly and ineffective at saving life (or anything for that matter) and provides a substantial list of alternatives. Of course, if one has a different belief about the aim of environmental policy then one will, probably, come to different conclusions. Lomborg's point (in "Cool It" at least) is that no one is addressing the merits of any particular policy at achieving this fundamental aim, and perhaps this is because people disagree about what the fundamental aim is. He suggests we agree on that before we make policy about it.
Continuing on...Dishonesty is using predictions at any extreme side of the confidence interval when arguing policy prescriptions: "An Inconvenient Truth."
Dishonesty is vilifying anyone whose opinion is different than you own (even if they really are wrong). How can anyone be on the moral high ground if they're questioning the integrity, faith, and/or intelligence of those below?
I do not think we'll escape ideological bias.
P.S.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find very telling in this whole debate (I've only paid attention since Al Gore's "documentary" came out) is that any critic of pro-environmental/pro-Kyoto policy is more likely to have his credentials called into question than his criticisms addressed. This seems very dishonest to me. Perhaps this is just the way of politics.
Credentials are important when you're discussing a matter of science. I wouldn't ask my roommate, or Tom Cruise, for medical advice. I'd ask a doctor. But to extend the analogy, I know from his actions that Tom Cruise is a Scientologist ideologue with respect to medicine, so I'd give his opinion even less weight (than say, my roommate) because of that. There is no difference when we're discussing climatology or any other scientific matter. Both expertise and ideology are important factors.
ReplyDeleteIf a scientist wants to challenge the prevailing consensus and theory about quantum mechanics, he can develop a model, or point to equations that he has derived, and then have those peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals on the subject. Those will then get tested by his fellows and either replace the current theory or discarded if the evidence doesn't support them. This is how scientific theories change. It's how de Broglie did it, how Einstein did it, how Feynman did it -- it's how it is done. It continues to happen in all the sciences. There is no vast ivory tower conspiracy here.
(Galileo was an exception because the scientific method as we know it was practically created by him. He *was* challenging an ivory tower conspiracy that was protected by the Roman church. There is nothing remotely similar to his situation today.)
By contrast, I can get on TV talking about how global warming is a crock without any sort of peer review or accountability or even expertise in the subject. That's NOT how scientific consensus is properly challenged -- it's how political debate is done, and it's inappropriate and dishonest to promote one completely unaccountable viewpoint as equivalently valid to the consensus of the peer-reviewed expert literature in the field.
Dyson's academic record does make a difference. Someone with a distinguished record in law would probably be less qualified to comment on matters of science than a physicist. Similarly someone with a distinguished career as a plumber or a theologian or whatever. Expertise matters.
Again, let's imagine that we have three papers about cancer treatment before us. One is by a group of doctors. The next is by a group of lawyers. The last is by a group of Scientologists. I can tell you precisely how I would rank those papers in order of likely accuracy and usefulness and I don't think I'll get any argument on it.
The reason I accuse Lomborg of intellectual dishonesty is because my reading of his book compared to the data he cites finds him to be selective in his use of statistics and manipulative in how he presents the conclusions. He's supporting a predetermined goal and cherry-picking data to fit it. It's the worst kind of scientific sin.
I do find it telling that most critics of the pro-environment policy have their credentials called into question. I find it even more telling that most of them don't have credentials at all.
I guess my quibble is with the word "academic." In deciding upon credentials, is there any other forum besides academe that we can trust? Yes, obviously. Not all good scientists (or lawyers) are academics. Students, scholars, academics. What are Al Gore's credentials? Did he really use footage of polar bears from MOVIES (fiction) to make his predetermined point? I heard that. If Gore is right, is he intellectually dishonest for doing whatever it takes to get the word out?
ReplyDeleteOne more thing: As an example (not meaning to apply it too broadly), if I had put my entire faith in doctors to fix certain health problems I've encountered in those I love, I'd be in deep trouble. I don't expect infallibility and miracle work by doctors, don't expect cures where there are none, but the solutions we finally found were available and effective. So, in my mind, "credentials" doesn't necessarily equal "competence" or even "expertise." It's a good place to start, of course. Maybe the best place?
ReplyDeleteOh my dear Christian, as my good mother foresaw, her son the chemical engineer is going to take serious issue with you here. I'll try to make this brief seeing that I want to go to sleep tonight and I have to go to work tomorrow morning.
ReplyDeleteI don't even really know where to begin here because I take exception with nearly every aspect of the current global warming alarmist religion and the contrived garbage they peddle. I guess I'll start with what you said and see where that takes me.
"The evidence for continuing acceleration of human-caused climate change and potential catastrophic effects is nearly incontrovertible." Really? Catastrophic? Incontrovertible? Listen, I know that Al Gore won an Oscar with that kind of language, but if you want to be taken seriously in a debate on global warming, give the inevitable gloom and doom rhetoric a rest. Seriously, it makes me nauseous. I'm assuming you do understand that incontrovertible means "Impossible to deny or disprove. Not open to question or dispute." Dig a little deeper in the thesaurus because there's plenty to dispute.
First off, the question of indisputable scientific evidence for man-caused global warming is a joke at best. The data are at very best inconclusive. In the interest of my time and yours I'll establish a qualifier for entering into a debate on global warming data. You give me a ten year period where GISS's models, or anyone elses, accurately predict the temperature forcing effects of greenhouse gases, solar irradiance, or any other variable and we'll talk. ANY assertion made about the "potential catastrophic effects" of global warming that is based on a model should be coupled with that model's error values. You'll excuse me if I don't donate my next paycheck to saving the drowning polar bear when the most sophisticated climate software we posses cannot predict when, where, and how strong a hurricane will hit in the next 24 hours. I'm not saying that the evidence is overwhelming in any direction, I'm saying that it's overwhelmingly inconclusive and I don't see how any self respecting critical thinker would arrive at a different conclusion. If taking drastic action to reverse our greenhouse gases output was treated as a project in industry, no one would spend a dime on it.
I find it ironic that you claim that Lomborg switched his argument when he found that the evidence for global warming was so very overwhelming. That seems to be the same tactic that global warming advocates used when CO2 outputs continued to "catastrophically rise" and the global temperature STOPPED WARMING. Since GISS's evidence showed a globe warmed instead of a globe warming the argument was safely shifted to "climate change." A much better argument since the climate is always changing. With the new mantra the ammo is endless. Hurricane? Climate change. Warmer? Climate change. Colder? Climate change. Killer bees. Climate Change. Ingenious. I'd quit casting stones at Lomborg. If we would have taken the alarmists' suggested drastic action in the 70's our polar ice caps would be covered in ash to prevent global cooling. What a joke.
The earth's climate is going to change and its going to change drastically. Sometimes it will be fast, sometimes it will be slow. Polar bears will die and other bears will take their place. We adapt, the world adapts. I'm sure the Og the caveman reporter did a touching piece on the last Wooley Mammoth who couldn't make it to his food because his sweat soaked fur weighed him down too much.
So leaving all the impossible to verify global warming facts behind let's talk about things that we actually know to be true.
The air you breathe today is 44% cleaner on an aggregate basis of the six primary pollutants than it was 40 years ago. Did you hear that? On AGGREGATE. With population increase and energy intensity increase we have drastically reduced the total pollution in the air. That is incredible. American energy companies do a great job, in general, at keeping the environment clean. Liberal global warming alarmists do a great job at annoying those of us who actually contribute and add value to society. Go bug China, because if what you claim about CO2 output is true America could go back to the stone age and this world is still going up in smoke from just our Asian brethren and you aint gonna convince them to regulate any of their pollutants, let alone CO2. So your argument is useless. Even if all your data are true, your argument is useless. Because it's GLOBAL WARMING, not USA warming. China and India will produce so much CO2, NOx, SOx, lead, O3, CO, and PM10 in the next 30 years that your precious polar bear will die of lung cancer before he floats away aimlessly to a watery grave on some ice chunk.
So if you guys are so smart just work on the solution. Because whether man-caused global warming is true or not, developing cost-effective efficient renewable energy will be vitally needed anyway. Just take all that money you're spending on Al Gore's private jet and invest in algae biodiesel and get out of the way of those that have the resources and knowledge to provide you with the energy that runs the world.
There. That's my short version.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteChristian,
ReplyDeleteHave you actually gone back and read any peer reviewed articles yourself, instead of taking some reporter's word that they are all overwhelmingly for global warming? Global warming is a prevailing liberal theory, not a prevailing scientific theory. Unfortunately in this matter, politics control a lot of the science here, or at least the scientific conclusions that are made on the matter. Take a look at those you claim to be "experts". Go look at the articles themselves. Go look at the data and the methods they used to arrive at the data and make your own unbiased conclusion. This debate is highly politically charged and thus highly contaminated with misdirection. One of the most important tenants of critical thought is getting first hand conclusions. Its done wonders for me.
Tenets, Michael. "First-hand" should be hypenated. "It's" done wonders for you. The period goes inside the quotes at the end of the sentence: "experts."
ReplyDeleteYou really should take an English class some day. Then you would understand what Christian has suffered. You do write very well for an engineer.
Love always from the Helpless Fleabag
Hyphen in "peer-reviewed," too, though hyphens are falling out of favor these days. Not with purist English semi-academics such as I, however.
ReplyDeleteCan you believe the last English class I took was AP English?! (Technical Writing doesn't count since I took it online and I didn't really have a teacher).
ReplyDeleteHm. Go back and put the period inside the parentheses in your last sentence, and all is forgiven. Except no forgiveness for the computer that taught your technical writing course.
ReplyDeleteSome thoughts:
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that "experts" are the people I'd consult on the facts of a particular matter within their field, they are NOT the only ones needed or able to construct, propose, inspect, defend, or criticize policy. Policy proscription is very different than medical proscription. They are NOT the same. At the very least, cause and effect are not nearly so easy to show.
If there really is this vast agreement and well established theory on global warming, then any disagreements or criticisms should be easy to dismiss based on theory alone, without the need to take shots at credentials at all. That fact that either side feels the need to do so says to me that their foundation isn't nearly so well established. It is certainly easier to blow of the person than their criticisms, but let's not call it honest in any way, shape, or form, okay?
Climate science, I feel, is much more like social science than chemistry or physics. I think the continued analogy between the two is misplaced. What kind of controlled experiments do climatologists run? My understanding is that they, like social scientists, are relegated to collecting data from the uncontrolled, natural world, and using clever statistics to figuring out relationships, cause and effect, forecasts, etc. And, as someone who has spent years with such statistical methods, it should all be handled with a huge grain of salt. Now, I realize that there may actually be some controlled experiments in climatology, just as not all experiments in physics are controlled. There is obviously a continuum here, but the climate sciences are much closer to the social sciences than the hard sciences. But that's just my opinion.
A lack of credentials doesn't automatically mean one's opinions are worthless, even in the grand discourse. Christian sounds like that's what he's saying. He want us to take his opinions seriously, but where are his credentials? He read, studied, and chose which people with credentials to believe. That's fine. That's what I did too. That's what every politician has to do. Let's realize that there are people of credentials on both sides (as DDT illustrated). Thus, the criticisms and ideas themselves should be the focus of our discourse, not the people or their credentials.
I personally am very comfortable with the idea that human beings affect he environment, perhaps in catastrophic ways. I still hate that Al Gore purposefully tried to terrify people into believing him! Let global warming be true or not. Now let's move on. What should we do about it? While I may agree or disagree with the body of evidence on global warming, I personally feel that there is NO consensus about what to do or what is effective. And there is no ONE degree or specialization that we can solely trust on this. All are qualified (at least at some level) to chime in!
In his book "Cool It," Lomborg took as given that the global warming threat is real (though he used forecasts in the middle of the confidence interval for his predictions, not the extremes as Al Gore did, the truly dishonest one...is it obvious that I dislike the man? I obviously need to listen to my own advice) and Christian criticized him for it . Lomborg then tried to discuss how best to "fix" the problem. The fact is (and Christian, if I'm wrong, please tell me why), there is no quick fix. The technology really needed to do the trick isn't here yet. The only proposals so far come with prohibitive costs with very little to show for them. Doing something for something's sake is dumb--unless it out of obedience to God, like tracting. Lomborg's simple suggestion was to start with the lowest hanging fruit now and invest in the better technology for the future. While one may disagree with this, I find it disgusting to ignore it and lambaste Lomborg instead.
That's all for now.
Cheers!
Even though I abhor Al Gore for what he did (in my opinion he used extreme and unreasonable forecasts without saying so because the opposite side of the band tells us there's no problem at all AND he failed to cite any of his sources--at least I couldn't find any; thus, I feel he presented a very deceitful view of the global warming debate and distorted every conversation that came afterward), I really shouldn't automatically dismiss everything else he writes, says, proposes, or presents. That's not really fair of me, is it? I have listened to him more recently and found him doing the same thing so I ignored him. That's probably the process I should go through every time: listen, scrutinize, judge. I should not just skip to the judgment.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Lomborg was dishonest in his first book. Maybe more. I truly don't know. What I do know is what I read in a later book, which seemed pretty reasonable to me. It's true that earlier actions can harm current credibility; however, shoudn't we be more liberal in the judgments we make and/or the chances we give?
Mike, you wrote this:
ReplyDelete"If we would have taken the alarmists' suggested drastic action in the 70's our polar ice caps would be covered in ash to prevent global cooling. What a joke."
This single quote demonstrates that you've bought into a standard myth used by opponents of environment-preservation public policy. George Will and David Boaz have used it recently, and it's a popular myth -- but it's still a myth. I'll quote from a USA Today article from a year ago:
"The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.
The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.
But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.
The study reports, 'There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.
'A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales.'"
The link to the article is here: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm
There was never any scientific consensus about global cooling at the time. You're repeating what is essentially a canard that doesn't have a basis in fact. Why would you do such a thing?
Meanwhile, the tone of your post is fairly angry and argumentative. You've done well at throwing thinly veiled insults throughout your post. Part of your time is spent calling me a leftist hippie: "money you've spent on Al Gore's private jet", "your precious polar bear", etc. Then you spend time criticizing the impotence of your liberal hippie opponents while lauding the people who -- in your view -- make real progress happen: "if you are so smart", "get out of the way of those with the knowledge and resources", "annoying those of us who actually do contribute and add value to society", and so on.
Are you willing to treat your discussion partners as more than some comical Randian caricature? Are you prepared to acknowledge that someone who disagrees with your views on this subject might be a valuable contributor to the progress of civilization?
It doesn't seem like you are. And if not, is there much point in this exercise?
Back to the topic at hand.
Essentially what I'm driving at in this whole matter is about whom one can trust. The Cato Institute is a good example of this. On the one hand, the Cato Institute publishes a seemingly reasonable letter undersigned by a decently-sized group of scientists. On the other hand, they have prominent members of their think tank (David Boaz in this case) peddling -- as fact -- the myth about global cooling that I pointed out above. That hurts their credibility in my eyes no matter what they publish. Incidentally, Al Gore is the same thing. I've never even seen An Inconvenient Truth and from what I understand it contains a bunch more of the exaggerations that DDT and Graham have pointed out. Which is bad -- even if Gore is right, dishonesty doesn't ultimately benefit him or anyone else and it hurts his credibility on everything he says. And you don't see me quoting from him or his movie about it. I'm more concerned with the process. If we get our public policy from Gore's movie it's just as flawed of an approach as getting it from the Cato Institute.
By contrast, the IPCC is an international panel of scientists reviewing scientific literature and publishing measured recommendations based on the accumulated conclusions of the community at large. It seems eminently reasonable to use those conclusions when designing public policy for the nation and for the world.
Honestly I don't care about polar bears or even global warming / climate change / whatever all that much. But it bothers me a great deal when politicians give equal time to two sides of a scientific argument that, scientifically speaking, aren't equal at all.