Credibility up in smoke

“Lindzen’s case enables us to draw the conclusion that the link between human activity and climate change is now so well-established that it would make us much sense as to doubt the relationship between smoking and lung cancer, that is, no sense at all.”

WHAT!?!?

Although I believe both these things are happening and the above statement must be meant ironically, I think your delivery of it lacks the nuance that would establish irony as the context.

“Lindzen’s case enables us to draw the conclusion that the link between human activity and climate change is now so well-established that it would make us much sense as to doubt the relationship between smoking and lung cancer, that is, no sense at all.”

True conclusion, bad argument.

Isn’t this an argumentum ad hominem? Holding an indefensible stance on the smoking/cancer issue should not automatically exclude him as a credible source on other matters. What thinker or scientist, now seen in the flattering light of their verified theories – Newton comes to mind – did not also at some point hold screw-ball views on different issues?

John: In the first sentence of the paragraph (that I think) you added, Now with added irony Lindzen argues that we should be equally about both climate change and the link between smoking and cancer, but his argument can just as easily be turned around, it appears that you dropped a word. Skeptical? credulous? Outraged? Pleased? My money is on one of the first two.

I do like the wording of the title.

I worry about how all this works. Because climate science is esoteric and complex, lay persons are forced to rely on experts. One side wins the argument and convinces the laity by assembling a strong majority of experts. We would hope this comes about because that majority of experts reach the same conclusions based on independent assessments of the evidence.

To a layperson, the more it appears that politics, intimidation, and groupthink are part of the process of assembling that majority, the less impressive and convincing that majority seems. For that reason, I think that it is absolutely crucial that climate change proponents be scrupulously fair and respectful in debating skeptics–addressing their arguments and avoiding ad-hominem and cui bono attempts to discredit.

The ‘full-court press’ method of establishing expert consenus by making it a career killer to express skepticism may work in the sense of creating that expert majority but the cost is that the kinds of arguments that Lindzen makes here then will resonate with the public:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

It may prove entirely possible to assemble that expert supermajority and have the voting public not find that majority compelling (which seems to describe current trends).

[Lindzen will] even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking.

Does anybody have a quote of what Lindzen actually said about lung cancer and cigarette smoking? The tobaccodocument.org archive just highlights some general quotes from Lindzen unrelated to lung cancer or cigarettes.

Is there any evidence that Lindzen is paid by the tobacco industry? Guilt by association?

The worst of it: Lindzen smokes.

Kerry Emanuel recently had an article in Nature showing a correlation between the rising sea surface temperatures and an increase in tropical storm intensities over the past 30 years.

Emanuel explains to Mark Hertsgaard about the connection between global warming and hurricane Katrina for the May issue of Vanity Fair.

“It’s a bit like saying, ‘My grandmother died of lung cancer, and she smoked for the last 20 years of her life—smoking killed her,'” explains Kerry Emanuel, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has studied hurricanes for 20 years. “Well, the problem is, there are an awful lot of people who die of lung cancer who never smoked. There are a lot of people who smoked all their lives and die of something else. So all you can say, even [though] the evidence statistically is clear connecting lung cancer to smoking, is that [the grandmother] upped her probability.”

The use of the smoking-lung cancer link metaphor is most apt because it is an example of a probabalistic link most people can correctly relate to.

Is a discount rate of 5% a fair number for the world economy over the next 50 years? If so, then we’d need Al Gore levels of harm done from Global Warming before doing something about it makes sense. And as we all know, Al Gore is an assclown.

Heh, so Al Gore says that this is a realistic scenario for Global Warming and I’m the assclown. Idiots like Al Gore and the people who support him are why Bush got reelected, if you don’t recall.

Jet, where did Al Gore say that that was a realistic scenario for global warming? He’s quoted as saying, “I do want to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the movie…to talk about what the real issues are,” which rather sounds as though he doesn’t think the movie itself addresses the real issues per se.

In re ad hominem: It’s not fallacious to say “Person X holds a crazy view on this subject p, so we have reason to discount his opinion on related subject q [in this case, the analysis of statistical evidence].”

Global Warming would kill us all if we didn’t implement Kyoto or some other horseshit.

Well, I think that it’s not obviously horseshit to think Global Warming –> melting of Antarctic ice shelves –> lots and lots of flooding and other Bad Things. Also the redirection of the Gulf Stream seems like a possibility and a dire one. But this is where the real debate is, over consequences and what measures might be required to stop them.

So now global warming, also, is the fault of smokers?!!

I do find it interesting that an administration that invades countries and tortures chicken farmers on the off-chance that they represent a threat turns all skeptical over catastrophic climate change.

Not to mention that people who express little to no concern over a war of choice costing $1 trillion (so far) go apoplectic over the fact that complying Kyoto will cost money.

C,
That article in Scientific American proves the opposite point you think it does. Lomborg was allowed one fucking page, while his attackers were initially allowed 11 pages plus all the following attacks that appeared in Thuggish Groupthink American Scientific American. The first 11 page attack was pure horseshit also. It was petty character assassination coupled with sniping attacks on minor errors, which Lomborg quickly corrected (these errors also had zero effect on his overall thesis).

The “Right” can always look back on that 11 page piece as strong evidence of how the scientific community will react to criticism. Lomborg may have been wrong, but that 11 page article didn’t do a damn thing to prove it.

To prove my point that Lomborg is being thuggishly attacked by groupthinking assholes, how about his Copenhagen Consensus being attacked for not using a

Oh Jet! The false tradeoff again, because we were just about to fix global poverty before these global warming people got to us weren’t we.

No, jet, scroll down on the page whose link I provided and you will find “Lomborg’s detailed response to our article in PDF format” which clocks in at *32* pages.

Writing “fuck” and its derivatives is not a substitute for facts. I have no idea what you’re raving about in the rest of the post.

On fair use: http://gonzoengaged.blogspot.com/2002/02/per-denver-i-went-and-checked-out-prof.html

Slocum now retreats to another point, but still wants to have it both ways. Science requires critique. Blomborg’s book was critique. Others critiqued Blomborg, and I think you’ll find that the Scientific Am article carefully works through the evidence and argument. #24 is ultimately grounded in an argument about public perception, with of course slocum’s own perceptions being used as evidence of public perception, so you have a typical trollish tautology: they’re outraged because they’re right and right because they’re outraged, becuase ultimately all they have to say is that they ARE outraged and who can argue with that?

Other wingnut troll constants: any critique by a guy on your side is a brave exposition of the truth. Any critique of a guy on your side is a thuggish attempt to stifle the truth. If your guy happens to be in a tiny minority, why, that’s just evidence of how vast and effective the thuggish conspiracy to suppress the truth is. What did I miss — sprinkle in hard-boiled prose and obscenities, and make up weirdly hysterical straw-man arguments to rant against. Jet’s “evil” is a classic example — he’s not actually quoting from anything, just the strawman he’s assembled in his own mind.

C,
Have you even read the original 11 page article in SA? Have your read Lomborg’s response? Have you examined the points of contention in the SE? Do you have a clue wtf you are talking about, or are you just taking exception with my rhetorical technique?

Jet-

I’m not having the knee-jerk reaction here, projector.

Please see #23 for what we should do with this hypothetical $50 million dollars from the CC. Please note, this doesn’t mean I’m against all C-B-A, I just think the CC’s framing of the issue is a bit precious.

And I do take issue with your rhetorical technique. Shame on me for encouraging you to hijack the thread.

c writes: ” Science requires critique. Blomborg’s book was critique.”

Science requires scientific critique. Blomborg’s book was not a scientific critique, thus it is not particularly useful.

Any crank can get a book published, after all. That doesn’t mean the critique is well founded.

jet, there’s a story in Businessweek about the Bush administration cutting funding for efficiency-related programs.

Here’s something that caught my eye: “Setting efficiency standards for refrigerators alone is saving nearly $20 billion a year, the California Energy Commission estimates.”

That means $20 billion a year is being saved, which could potentially be spent on the “more important” issues like malaria, poverty, and AIDS.

I just don’t see how anyone could contend that climate-related efforts are mutually exclusive from dealing with other problems in the world.

It doesn’t take a genius to understand that if we’re spending all our money on energy, we aren’t spending that money on improving conditions in developing nations.

Shorter JQ: He’s a con artist

That seems rather strong given the linked entry. The Copenhagen consensus did not include climate change proposals less comprehensive than Kyoto that might have done better from a cost-benefit perspective? Well, OK, but what I’ve been reading about Kyoto from many proponents is that while it won’t achieve a great deal on its own, it is paving the way for stricter and more comprehensive measures to follow. So not including milder alternatives does not seem to me to be an obvious sign of bad faith.

“Oh Jet! The false tradeoff again, because we were just about to fix global poverty before these global warming people got to us weren’t we.”

Posted by albert ·

Albert, you’re being a bit soft – a ‘false tradeoff’ would be when somebody’s making a logical error; this sort of thing is better called a ‘fraudulent offer’.

“Shorter JQ: He’s a con artist”
What would Kyoto like expenditures cost the world at a 5% discount rate over the next 50 years?

Don’t answer as it may make you look like a con artist bashing Lomborg so you can hang with the cool kids.

Richard Lindzen’s recent article in the august and seemly op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal appears to be saying (A) that his own theories of climate are more valid than are given credit, (B) that he is being unfairly dealt with, and (C) in a way that may hurt his future funding. The only known fact is, the climate journals have not validated his “Iris” hypothesis. He also maintains a second, simultaneous rhetorical argument using three false assertions: (1) that climate alarmism is entirely unfounded, (2) that the vast bulk of the climatologists are alarmists, and (3) that alarmism is dangerous, because mitigation must lead to certain economic damage. (Here again, we find it in yet another article: Although it is a bottom-pivot, we are never given proof of this economic assertion.) Mr. Lindzen demonstrates his arguments by implication, indeed by allusive suggestion, using parallel anecdotes. We the readers are left to combine his two arguments and conclude that Mr. Lindzen, and the public interest, are being unjustly harmed in the bums’ rush to avoid a trumped-up, phony catastrophe.

Scientific American did NOT threaten to sue Bjorn Lomborg over his making a rebuttal, as was claimed by a commenter above, it threatened a copyright suit to prevent him from republishing their critical article on his website. Far from being thuggish, this was entirely appropriate — and probably very wise, given the final quality of Lomborg’s enormous rebuttal, because he is quite a logic-chopper, misleading himself and therefore others with an occasionally quite shallow understanding of the underlying scientific disciplines. The Scientific American critique demolished Lomborg’s scientific credibility; see it along with his entire rebuttal at

http://www.sciam.com/media/pdf/lomborgrebuttal.pdf

as well as Scientific American editor John Rennie’s detailed reply to Lomborg’s rebuttal, at

http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00040A72-A95C-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF

Any notion that The Economist knew what was going on, is laughable.

Scientific American did NOT threaten to sue Bjorn Lomborg over his making a rebuttal, as was claimed by a commenter above, it threatened a copyright suit to prevent him from republishing their critical article on his website. Far from being thuggish, this was entirely appropriate…

Lomborg ‘fisked’ the article with his rebuttal comments interspersed with the original text in the usual manner.

…and probably very wise, given the final quality of Lomborg’s enormous rebuttal, because he is quite a logic-chopper, misleading himself and therefore others.

In other words, the legal threats were not to protect SciAm’s financial interest in the copyrighted text but rather to try to suppress Lomborg’s detailed rebuttal because it might be ‘misleading’. Sorry — that is abusive and thuggish.

Albert,
The link was clear. They were buying wind power at $.07KWh. Natural gas costs $.05 more than that and coal/nuclear is only slightly cheaper. Wind is already cheaper than all the natural gas energy plants we have and will continue to come down in price. Just pointing out that when Lomborg said fossil fuels days were numbered and would be gone by 2050, he was probably wrong and they’ll be replaced earlier.

John Quiggin,
So at current GDP, and assuming we started Kyoto in 1998, it would cost $62 billion a year to implement Kyoto. And this will do almost nothing to stop Global Warming in the next 100 years. But if we invested that annual $62 billion, it would pay for a lot of environmental damage in 100 years (perhaps $150+ trillion worth). The US currently spends ~$2-3 billion on alternative fuel research, which we could increase by 20-30 times for the cost of Kyoto. If I’m going to support a tax on the energy market, then I want the money spent on R&D and not a 0 sum purchasing “carbon rights” from developing nations.

Lomborg is right.

Could we get back to discussing Lindzen?

I’m curious: what are the strongest arguments against discounting his credibility as a climate scientist? His tobacco/cancer-skepticism is suggestive but there are surely better arguments. An earlier comment noted his “Iris Effect” theory has not been supported in the follow-up peer-reviewed literature. Any other examples like this? How seriously is he taken by his scientific peers and what are their reasons for/against taking him seriously?

I’m surprised too that no one has mentioned his links with oil industry, if Sourcewatch is to be trusted:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Lindzen

Arnold,
What is this supposed to mean “The reason Kyoto seeks to penalize the U.S. is because the U.S. belches 25% of the total world carbon dioxide, and some of the people in the other countries are eating dirt tonight for dinner…” ?

This conspiracy theory doesn’t survive the very next test, which asks how that suppression would remain undiscovered. Lomborg’s entire rebuttal is out there, in fact Scientific American provides a pdf link to it. If you have already studied the science, go and read him: he hangs himself.

But that is my point. If it is true that Lomborg’s entire rebuttal constitutes a self-hanging, then it was incredibly effing stupid for SciAm to threaten legal action to suppress it–which they indisputably did do. If skeptics can be answered by argument and evidence rather than repression that is how they should be answered. Any other response (even if later reversed) creates a substantive foundation for the claim that the dispute is political rather than scientific. Which is why the right way to answer Lindzen is to argue substance rather than try to tar him as a tobacco shill.

As a process, not a goal, Kyoto is enormously valuable. Even some economists who have effectively criticized Kyoto are on record with the opinion that it is still a good first step in learning how to manage international relations at this extraordinary level of complexity. It would finally cost the U.S. very little or nothing to join because almost no other country is going to meet its target either, and it is practically unenforceable anyway. Instead, Kyoto has become another straw-man in the employ of the U.S. anti-science brigade.

OK, let me see if I’ve got this straight — as a proof-of-concept project, Kyoto is ‘enormously valuable’ even though hardly anybody is going to meet their targets (or write the checks necessary to buy credits to cover their excess emissions) and there is no enforcement mechanism? The U.S. should have joined because pretty much everybody is going to ignore their treaty obligations anyway?!? Should we assume that this will pave the way for future, more stringent agreements (that will likewise be ignored)?

What’s not to understand? The metaphors are exacting, the intentions cherubic, the inference clear.

Clark’s and Patterson’s biographies both mention “paleoclimatology.” If you have the right to opine about climate science, why exactly are you trying to dismiss their opinions? Does paleoclimatology not count for anything?

Taylor may not have a PhD, but his bio seems to indicate that he is well-qualified to judge the state of the research. Dare I say it, at least as well-qualified as you are. Why do I get the feeling that you’re stacking the deck here? (“No one dissents from the most hysterical global warming scenarios out there.” “Oh? Actually, here are several qualified people who demur on one ground or another.” “Ah, they don’t count, because one is recently retired, and the other is only a paleoclimatologist (not a climatologist), etc., etc., etc.”)

What’s more: Freitas is an “embarrassment”? How? Is your link supposed to demonstrate that? All I see from the linked story is that Freitas helped process a controversial paper that disputed various global warming claims — even though none of the reviewers recommended rejection of the publication and the review process had been “properly conducted.”

Folks, in case anyone is still reading, this thread is another proof of what you’re up against with the Mighty Wurlitzer. They will invent a claim of persecution, and whine it repeatedly, no matter what. Here’s what Scientific American really said:

“What Lomborg’s web site does not acknowledge, moreover, is that when we first pointed out the copyright infringement to him, we volunteered to put his entire response onto our web site, thus eliminating the copyright infringement problem. This posting will occur concurrently with our May issue. Scientific American has no interest in trying to stifle debate on this subject and has done nothing toward that end. We are disappointed that Lomborg or some of his supporters might have anyone think otherwise.”

Folks, in case anyone is still reading, this thread is another proof of what you’re up against with the Mighty Wurlitzer. They will invent a claim of persecution, and whine it repeatedly, no matter what. Here’s what Scientific American really said:

Yeah–the Lomborg issue of SciAm was January 2002. SciAm offered to publish Lomborg’s short printed response and post his long, point-by-point rebuttal only in May (at which point, the impact would be significantly reduced). The point-by-point rebuttal could, of course, have been posted on the SciAm web site immediately (there’s no print-associated delay there) but, of course, SciAm does not say they offered to do that that. (But if I’m wrong, and SciAm offered to post Lomborg’s entire reply at the time they insisted he remove it from his own web site rather than months later, then I will agree that there was no harassment in the case).

The idea that SciAm was only worried about Lomborg’s fisking of their article hurting sales and that it had nothing to do with their publishing an issue that very forcefully took sides on a highly controversial issue … well reasonable people can differ on whether that is BS or not.

In general, the anti-Lomborg issue was a highly unusul exercise for Scientific American. In that case, for their own benefit, they should have bent over backwards to give Lomborg full freedom to respond, rather than harrass and try to delay it and give him a reason to cry foul (along precisely some of the same lines Lomborg had criticised environmental activists in his book). It was just stupid on Scientific American’s part.

John Quiggin,
The Danish government? You seem fully aware that Lomborg was under official government attack in Denmark until more than 2 years after his book was published. You also seem fully aware that the DCSD, after having been ordered by their minister to “provide specific statements on actual errors.” dropped their case (maybe because their case was built on two non-peer reviewed Scientific American articles[yes the articles Slocum and you are discussing, as you well know], while Lomborg’s book had been peer reviewed by the Cambridge press).

But there you are in comment 68 saying Lomborg had access to the Danish government as his personal spin machine. John Quiggin, you appear to contradict yourself.

Quiggin: Your doubt of Freitas’s credibility seems to be utterly baseless. At least it has no basis in the linked article. All you’ve shown is that Freitas, a skeptic, agreed to publish an article by another set of skeptics. Is that supposed to be even remotely surprising, let alone discrediting?

Besides, while another commenter here claimed that the 60 people were “climate scientists,” their actual letter merely claimed that they were “accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines.” This description seems perfectly defensible to me.

In any event, I think that you’re being a bit slippery here: “overwhelming support for the conclusion that human activity is generating global warming.”

From what I’ve seen: 1. Overwhelming support for the proposition that some modest warming has occurred.

2. Good support for the proposition that some of this warming is human-caused, but not 100% certainty about how much.

3. Is there a consensus on the proposition that human beings could take any realistic action that would truly slow or stop warming? This seems much less certain.

4. Is there a consensus on the proposition that human beings should take whatever action is necessary to stop global warming, rather than adapting to it (i.e., by Floridians migrating to Minnesota or North Dakota over the next few hundred years)? Again, I don’t see how anyone could even pretend that there is any certainty about this question.

Arnold, are you blind or just simple. Could you not read 4 more sentences about how the DCSD didn’t bring any specific examples of their problems with him? And all your vaunted opinion of the subject is based on Quiggin and Wikipedia with no contact with the original source. Opinion like that is usually called “blather”.

Wow, and here you are privy to their notes and thoughts. Either that or you have been endowed with the power of ESPN and can read minds (while tuning in sports shows).

As for this “But they couldn’t prove it is a scientific book anyhow.”, while I don’t have my copy with me, I’m pretty sure he makes this claim himself. The book isn’t about his research. It is about commentary on other people’s research and what it means to the state of the world.

And has for “Their mistake.” Perhaps when a government funded scientific body wants to force a press to stop publishing a controversial book, having credible evidence against the book should probably be a requirement. Otherwise they might make themselves look like kneejerk thugs, enforcers of groupthink.

Poser.

Are you speaking about Mr.Shouldn’t-we-have-lost-20%-of-the-biota Lovejoy? Yeah, appropriate you bring him up on a thread about blown credibility.

And since you’ve finally alluded to having some first hand knowledge of that which you speak, I’ll go back over the criticims of his wildlife extinction chapter. Perhaps you can point to something extra besides what was listed in Scientific American?

“We shall no doubt all be thanking him and you shortly…”, With new wind turbine farms going up producing electricty at

$.07KWh (which will continue to decline in price along with solar), yes I am thanking him for giving me a heads up 4 years ago, that while Climate Change was probably real (he only had 1999 data to go on), doing something like Kyoto about it was a waste. We are well on track to start curbing CO2 output without Kyoto-esque treaties.

Arnold,
In the Scientific American response to Lomborg, where does Lovejoy make the points that show Lomborg was biasing the data? I reread it trying to see it from a anti-Lomborg point of view and just can’t find the slam-dunks against him. It was humorous and hard to miss Lovejoy make a claim that Lomborg ignored a particular subject and then Lomborg quote his book to refute him. But I’d really like you to point out the points that I’m missing.

Heh, me thinks Lomborg pwn3d the climate change chapter. Oh, and did I also mention I buy my electricity from a wind farm and pay ~$.0140KW/h less than regular grid power? I’ll have to admit Lomborg was a little conservative about how long it would take the free market to lower CO2 output without Kyoto-esque zero-sum treaties.

Wow, so renewable energy is in the first stages of becoming a major player in energy production. By 2020 it should be the dominant form of energy production, which will be convenient for the fleet of hydrogen cars that are expected to be online.

But don’t fear haters of progress, Malkin has a piece about new environmentalist groups ramping up to stop new wind power as it just enables, gasp, more growth. They are certainly taking new memberships.

So in 2-5 more years when wind is as cheap as coal, my state’s coal plants, which have been putting off pollution upgrades for over a decade, will finally pay for those upgrades rather than just ramp down coal production as they ramp up wind production? I see what you are saying. Less efficient means of production never are replaced with more efficient means. They both stay around forever adding to total.