Comments on: Confusing the public about global warming

By: Steve Grimwood

Steve Grimwood — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:39:50 +0000

Did you know your site is a googlewhck. Thats not rude it’s quite impressive if you enter the words astrophysicist and silverbacks into the google search engine you are the only site out of 3 billion on google that registers a hit. I’m not a weirdo just thought you made find that quite interesting. Try it yourself and see better still try and find another whack and drop me a line to let me know. Bet you can’t it’s harder than it seems Steve

By: Ken Silber

Ken Silber — Fri, 19 Sep 2003 23:08:06 +0000

By the way, the new URL for my article is http://www.techcentralstation.com/071403C.html Also, Dano, comments at TCS are open again. Hope you come back.

By: Ken Silber

Ken Silber — Fri, 19 Sep 2003 23:04:09 +0000

I think there’s some confirmation bias in this very post. You note that I (Kenneth Silber) show up in the search results for Shaviv and Veizer. But you make no comment on (and maybe didn’t read) the TCS article I wrote about them. Then you cite Shaviv’s website as if it were something ignored or hidden. Among other things, my article says this: On his website, Shaviv states that human activity may still be responsible for a third to a half of present-day global warming, and expresses a hope to see fossil fuel use reduced, “even though global warming is not the main reason.”

By: Dano

Dano — Fri, 12 Sep 2003 18:24:19 +0000

I was a frequent contributor to the feedback section of TCS, now removed.

It was an easy thing to find where the Think-Tank employees posing as authorities cherry-picked journal articles to push their point of view.

The mendacity and tendention on that site is both blatant and disturbing.

The extraction industry ads on the site are a big clue as to the ideological bent.

Dano

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:56:12 +0000

Katherine Rose Hawkins wrote:

As to what the exact effects will be, it’s much less clear. The analogy one Columbia prof came up with is “poking an angry beast with a stick.” Not something we want to do. The consequences of acting are far less than the consequences of not acting.

I am a bit confused here. How can you go from saying “as to what the exact effects [of global warming] will be, it’s much less clear” to saying “the consequences of acting are far less than the consequences of not acting”? It seems to me that you cannot credibly state that the consequences of not acting are worse then acting when you admit that you do not know what those consequences will be. I do not think it is a settled matter at all what the consequences of acting versus not acting will be (especially when there are so many different things that might be considered “acting”). It could very well be that by not doing anything major or draconian now (e.g. Kyoto), we create enough wealth and technological advancement that we find a much more cost-effective solution later. It could also be the case that the costs of “not acting” are really not as great as the worst-case scenarios so often put out by the proponents of “action.”

By: Michael Blowhard

Michael Blowhard — Fri, 12 Sep 2003 03:43:14 +0000

A few thoughts from a know-nothing in the peanut gallery? But one who did read the Lomborg, and who followed the debates about it closely? * A point no one seems to have made in this thread is that Lomborg never claimed to be doing any original science. He was deliberately confining himself to what he knows, which is statistics. He was examining the scientists’ own figures—that (as I recall) was the whole point of his book: that, using their own figures, very different conclusions could easily be drawn than were usually being drawn. * So criticizing him for not being a true environmental scientist (which, again as I recall, was the gist of a lot of the SciAm pans of him) seems to be rather willfully missing the point of the book. He wasn’t questioning the science, he was questioning the use that’s made of their figures. * Just a proof-less impression here, but SciAm often strikes me as terribly PC these days. I read it years ago, dropped it for a long time, came back to it, and found that it had become quite a different magazine than it once was. * I’ve got no science myself to call on, but I did spend some years hanging out on the farther ends of the eco movement, and was finally appalled by much of what I saw—exaggerations and misrepresentations by management (who were often hippie scientists playing politics), and naive credulousness on the part of the followers, for whom environmentalism was clearly a secular religion. So, much of what Lomborg—who, for all I know, is wrong wrong wrong himself—wrote about the kinds of misuses eco-people sometimes make of science rang true to me. * I recall seeing Lomborg speak to a conservative audience, and he tweaked and teased them quite a lot, making the point many times over that he considers himself an environmentalist and that he himself dislikes Bush. He was quite the provocateur, really, and clearly enjoyed raising their ire a bit. He also stated over and over that he wants to see steps taken to protect and improve eco-conditions and that the goal of his book wasn’t to question anyone’s science; or to let anyone off the hook. Instead, it was to help people see how and where to get the most eco-improvement for their buck and effort. All very subjective and anecdotal, I know. But offered in a FWIW spirit.

By: Katherine

Katherine — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 05:37:32 +0000

There was not a scientific consensus five, ten years ago. There is today. There are still respectable scientists who disagree, but I think they’ve had a hard time explaining the stratosphere’s cooling as the lower atmosphere warms. The existence of natural sources of climate change doesn’t mean that it isn’t also man made or largely man made—and even if it were 10% manmade, it has the power to be incredibly destructive and that’s the only part we can control. As to what the exact effects will be, it’s much less clear. The analogy one Columbia prof came up with is “poking an angry beast with a stick.” Not something we want to do. The consequences of acting are far less than the consequences of not acting. This administration’s slow, methodical, cautious approach sure does differ from their foreign policy. Gee, why could that be? Basically they’re throwing around sixth grade book report language—”global climate change is a very complex and very interesting issue” was the gist of that recent EPA report—to keep the public confused until they can no longer plausibly argue that the problem isn’t real. (There’s even an internal memo that was leaked, about how “the window for scientific debate is closing—against us—but not yet closed.”) Whereupon the argument will shift too, “well the damage is done, it’s too late and too costly to fix it now.”

By: Mark Bahner

Mark Bahner — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:51:45 +0000

Ophelia Benson writes, “Oh I see – there are some hostile comments in Schneider’s article – ad hominems, if you like. But you said ‘It was little more than a series of personal attacks on Dr. Lomborg’…Which is complete and utter nonsense.” It can’t possibly be “complete and utter nonsense,” Ophelia, if you admit that there are indeed “ad hominems” in Schneider’s piece. You may disagree with the characterization that it is “little more” than personal attacks, but it can’t possibly be “complete and utter nonsense.” Regarding the single paragraph you chose (your post of September 9, 11:30 PM): 1) Have you ever actually even read The Skeptical Environmentalist? If not, don’t you think should? 2) Stephen Schneider wrote, “First, most of his nearly 3,000 citations are to secondary literature and media articles.” This is nothing more than a personal attack on Dr. Lomborg, because Dr. Lomborg explained, in detail, in his book, why he chose to cite “secondary literature” and “media articles.” The “media articles” were chosen to demonstrate how environmental problems were signifantly exaggerated in the popular press. The “secondary literature” references were sources such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, and publications from the U.S. EPA. Dr. Lomborg made the point that he was including them because they were: 1) authoritative, and 2) generally readily available at no cost (where professional journal articles are typically not available at no cost). For Stephen Schneider to not include mention of the REASON for Dr. Lomborg including those citations demonstrates that Stephen Schneider is either an extremely careless reviewer, or dishonest, or both. (For John Rennie, the editor of “Scientific” American not to catch and correct Stephen Schneider demostrates that Mr. Rennie is either a lousy editor, or dishonest, or both.) 3) Stephen Schneider also wrote, “IPCC authors, in contrast, were subjected to three rounds of review by hundreds of outside experts. They didn’t have the luxury of reporting primarily from the part of the community that agrees with their individual views.” This is also a dishonest slur against Dr. Lomborg. Stephen Schneider ought to know that the IPCC scenarios (“stories”) in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) that had the highest greenhouse gas emissions and temperature increases were added ***after peer review*** by Robert Watson, the former head of the IPCC. They were therefore NOT subject to “three rounds of review by hundreds of outside experts.” Ms. Benson concludes, “So I’ve had enough, you’re just shouting, not discussing.” I haven’t shouted at all, Ms. Benson. You asked to be corrected if you were wrong in saying that Scientific American is not “leftish” or “politically biased.” I was correcting you; Scientific American is “leftish” and “politically biased.” Please don’t get me wrong; I subscribe to Scientific American, and it has many good articles. But it is “leftish” and “politically biased”…and the “Scientific” American review of Bjorn Lomborg’s book was a disgrace.

By: Mark Bahner

Mark Bahner — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:16:09 +0000

I wrote, to Ophelia Benson, “You’re wrong. Scientific American’s treatment of Bjorn Lomborg’s book is conclusive proof that Scientific American is ‘leftish’ and ‘politically biased.’” Raj responds, “I have to admit, whenever someone comes out and starts spewing things like “leftish” (or “leftist”), I usually tune him or her out. That is certainly an ad hominem ‘argument.’” Read more carefully, Raj. **I* did not “come out” and “start spewing” things like “leftish.” That word was a direct quote of Ophelia Benson. Ms. Benson wrote, “…I don’t take, for example, the Scientific American to be a leftish or politically biased magazine. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s my impression.” I was simply responding to her request to be corrected, if she was wrong. She was wrong. Scientific American is a leftish and politically biased magazine. The “Scientific” American review of Bjorn Lomborg’s book demonstrates that Scientific American is “leftish” and “politically biased.” I also wrote, “Science is the pursuit of the truth. It is NOT necessary that pursuit of the truth be “adversarial process,” since all parties have the same goal.” Raj responds, “This is a joke, right?” No, it was not a joke, Raj. I was completely serious. Raj continues, “Science is indeed a pursuit of the truth, but those that engage in the pursuit do indeed engage in an adversarial process.” Some scientists do engage in an “adversarial process.” But it’s completely unneccessary. http://www.dictionary.com defines “adversary” as: “1) An opponent; an enemy. 2) Adversary The Devil; Satan. Often used with the.” There do NOT need to be “adversaries” in science, by that definition. I’ll give you an example, based on personal experience. I was working on determining styrene emissions from the manufacture of fiber-reinforced plastic products (such as boats, tubs and shower stalls, spas, etc.). I hypothesized that air flow over the molds would increase emissions of styrene (logical, since it’s an evaporative process). Then my group and an industry trade association ran tests, at air flow velocities over the mold of 50 feet per minute and 100 feet per minute. Both tests showed essentially no effect on emissions. Subsequently, ANOTHER trade association claimed that air flow velocities over their process would affect emissions. But they were talking about much lower velocities (essentially zero to ~20 feet per minute). That second trade association DID find an effect. I and the first trade association agreed that the second trade association’s tests were valid; we ALL agreed that, if velocities were reduced low enough, emissions would be reduced. There was no “adversary” in that process. We were all seeking the truth. A second example: Stephen Hawking and another physicist (whose name escapes me) had a one dollar bet about some obscure (to me at least) point of cosmology or astrophysics. After about 10 years of debate back and forth, Stephen Hawking agreed that he was wrong, and sent the physicist $1. The physicist framed the $1 on his wall, along with Stephen Hawking’s note admitting he was mistaken. The men weren’t “adversaries.” They were colleagues/friends, with a simple disagreement about a matter of science. “One scientist proposes a theory, and provides evidence and analysis that he believes supports his theory. Other scientists examine the evidence and analysis to determine whether they support the theory, and may try to find other evidence that either supports or refutes the theory. That is not an adversarial process?” No, it’s NOT an adversarial process. First off, the person who proposes the theory is obligated by science to ALSO provide evidence that does NOT support his/her theory if he/she generates such evidence (just as happened with my theory about air flow over molds). The other scientists are similarly obligated by science: 1) those who disagree with the theory are obligated by science to present data that SUPPORT the theory, if they generate such data, and 2) those who agree with the theory are obligated by science to present data that do NOT support the theory, if they generate such data. It is not necessary that science be an adversarial process; in true science, ALL participants are on the same side…they all are seeking the truth.

By: Robert Schwartz

Robert Schwartz — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 16:21:26 +0000

Keith M Ellis:

The "you guys do it, too" defense is remarkably weak, because it’s a diversionary defense.

I even know that the name of the argument is: Tu Quoc.

That liberals behave similarly badly on other issues is completely beside the point.

Actually it is the point. Everyone does it. Even "Scientists" do it. Believe it or not, but if "Scientists" restricted themselves to pontificating about science it would enhance their credibility and make their science less subject to attack, although they would get less ink in the dailys. One may argue, as Trish does above, that certain facts have occured and that they made lead to certain factual concequences. But, once you go into the policy thicket, you are acting as a politician, and may be attacked by people with other political agendas. Global warming may be afoot, but what do do about its a political question. One faction wants us to abandon industrial civilzation and another says buy more sunscreen and air conditioners. If there is a real problem it may be soluble. Although I have a deep suspicion that those people who claim care more about rocks and fishes than men, want to be problems not solve them.

That people like you don’t understand this demonstrates that they see this sort of thing as a sort of a contest, a football match, that’s all about who scores the most points against the opposition.

I take it that you are speaking of what we in America call "soccer," as no one here would call a real football game a "match." I always thought that the whole point of a "football match" was to produce a scorless tie so that the fans could get drunk and kick each other with steel-toed boots.

Some of us, however, are more concerned with silly little things like the truth and actually solving problems.

Good for you. Unfortunately that puts you in a very distinct minority.

. . . I see at least as much bad-science-based arguments from the left as I do from the right. I find it all quite objectionable.

On that much we agree.

By: raj

raj — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:26:56 +0000

Mark Bahner says “You’re wrong. Scientific American’s treatment of Bjorn Lomborg’s book is conclusive proof that Scientific American is “leftish” and “politically biased.”” I have to admit, whenever someone comes out and starts spewing things like “leftish” (or “leftist”), I usually tune him or her out. That is certainly an ad hominem “argument.” Mark Bahner also says “Science is the pursuit of the truth. It is NOT necessary that pursuit of the truth be “adversarial process,” since all parties have the same goal.” This is a joke, right? Science is indeed a pursuit of the truth, but those that engage in the pursuit do indeed engage in an adversarial process. One scientist proposes a theory, and provides evidence and analysis that he believes supports his theory. Other scientists examine the evidence and analysis to determine whether they support the theory, and may try to find other evidence that either supports or refutes the theory. That is not an adversarial process?

By: chris

chris — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:22:18 +0000

I can’t really share your view of the SciAm treatment of Lomborg, Ophelia. The impression I got was of people (especially Schneider) who were annoyed at someone running interference on the fairly simple (indeed oversimple) message they wanted to communicate to the public. Indeed they were especially annoyed that the person so doing lacked, in their view, the appropriate credentials. This was a pity, because I think that there’s a great deal in Lomborg’s book that is plain misleading (for example his treatments of fish stocks and deforestation; his tendency to switch from short- to long-term trends depending on which supports his “sceptical” case). The net result of the SciAm critique was not to demolish Lomborg but to boost his public credibility (ditto for his condemnation by that panel in Denmark).

By: Bill Brown

Bill Brown — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:39:54 +0000

There’s also some indication that ice cap melting is happening on Mars, which is quite short of human activities. I’m not a subscriber to New Scientist so I can’t positively verify that there’s an article about this subject, but I don’t know why someone would lie about something so easily verifiable. I am a libertarian of sorts and I must say that I find the environmentalist arguments untenable in general. I don’t think the variables at play in the earth’s climate are well-enough understood to accurately make predictions since they can’t even accurately model the past and present. It seems like more and more factors are cropping up regularly, which could indicate either that we’re understanding the system better or that we’re really not understanding the system at all. Of course, that hasn’t stopped anyone from making the most outrageous predictions. The science I’ve heard from dissenters from the global warming orthodoxy makes sense to me, but I don’t pretend to be anything but an interested observer. If our understanding were more certain, then I would tend to agree with the global-warming-predicting scientists because they’re plausible too. But their understanding is, as I said, imperfect and I can’t see making far-reaching policy decisions on uncertain foundations—though this wouldn’t be the first or last policy made on such shaky grounds.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 01:51:49 +0000

Oh I see – there are some hostile comments in Schneider’s article – ad hominems, if you like. But you said “It was little more than a series of personal attacks on Dr. Lomborg” Which is complete and utter nonsense. That quotation I gave is far more representative; the article is a great deal more than a series of personal attacks on Lomborg. So I’ve had enough, you’re just shouting, not discussing. Not interesting.

By: back40

back40 — Wed, 10 Sep 2003 01:15:20 +0000

“There is no heresy in science” Tell that to Hannes Alfven.