I'm waiting as patiently as possible for someone to tell me that 'a cow died for your steak!' so I can respond "No, billions of cattle lived so I could have this steak."
If possible I'll explain that cows make very poor pets.
One proof that it's a religious article of faith is when anything and everything can be ascribed to the same anecdotal source: it's hotter because of global-warming, it's colder because of global-warming, it snowed more, it rained more, it snowed less, it rained less, El-Nino, arctice ice is melting, antarctic ice is piling up - ad-nauseum, etc.
It continually amazes me that people who comment the loudest about "global warming" have the least apparent understanding of the difference between weather and climate. Such statements as, "Gobal warming is a myth because it's snowing" typify that.
I don't have an opinion about global warming either way. I haven't studied the issue. I'm simply annoyed at those who think they have and yet make statements which show they haven't.
The polemic makes the typical confusion between scientific evidence and popular followings. Hint: even if someone started a cult where the wave/particle duality of light is one of the mysteries, it wouldn't turn physics into religion.
If you're looking for dogma here, you won't find it. People reversing course on particular biofuels because of the consequences is the opposite of dogmatism. People calling for more data collection (which would disprove the thesis, if the thesis was wrong) are not dogmatic. Yet it's the Bush administration which has been taking apart the earth-science mission of NASA, to prevent the collection of troublesome facts. (It's been closing and dispersing EPA libraries for the same reason.)
I read the papers. Who wrote the second one, or was it a translation?
"...peat degradation alone accounts for 97-238 million tonnes of carbon being emitted every year from South-east Asia..."
Ninety-seven to 238 million tons? What precision!
"Tell me when you see a real religion reversing course."
Judaism to Christianity. Catholicism to Protestantims. Greek and Russian Orthodox. Sufi, Shiia, and Sunni Islam...
Need I go on? And those are just the ones who purportedly believe in the god Abraham worshipped.
Global Warming - which may in fact be occurring, and might even be influenced by human generated carbon emissions - has become a religion for many, many people - just as global cooling, the "population bomb," "Silent Spring," etc. did. Only now the funding is better.
Just because they worship, doesn't mean they understand. Get the difference?
Climate change happens. Climate is not steady-state. Hey, if the first paper is right, "man-made global warming" was a good thing. The earth has been hot and swampy before. It's been an ice-ball before. Both long before humans strode the surface.
We're human beings. We'll adapt our environment to suit ourselves. It's what we do. It's what sets us apart from the other species.
We're human beings. We'll adapt our environment to suit ourselves. It's what we do. It's what sets us apart from the other species.
So does any species that builds nests. So do elephants, who denude whole forests and who create water holes. So do feral hogs, who eat anything and who turn midwestern woodlands into wastelands. So do prairie dogs, who turn pastureland into the equivalent of minefields.
You're on thin ice, Kevin. You are perilously close to saying, "It's what we do, so it must be OK." No, adapting an environment to suit oneself is not OK if it is aptly described as fouling one's own nest. We're all in this nest called earth, and we're capable of fouling the hell out of it.
It would be hilarious if it didn't impact my life. Sort of like the flat earth society of our time. And though I like to believe in environmental issues that are real and can be changed (some things are just harsh, deal with it), these people make me want to do just the opposite. I honestly am trying to enlarge my co2 footprint. I envy Gore on this one issue. Carnaval freaks and intellectual bottom feeders, these people are wearing paint, hating my country, capitalism, Christianity... Hmmm, thought we took care of the natives centuries ago. Where is my boom stick, brb...
DJ, this is why I hope to add to this post in the future, but here's the short-form:
The climate is changing. Surprise! It does that. It always has. with or without our influence. Since the evidence shows that Mars seems to be warming, then I find the idea that Earth is warming too not too shocking. But even if the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to the changing climate we're not going to stop burning fossil fuels. The U.S. won't. EUrope won't. India won't. China won't. Hydrocarbons are the only source of energy that are economically feasible and accessible for the short- and medium-term future.
So, as the climate changes, regardless of why, humans will adapt. If the seas rise and coastal cities become inundated, we'll make like the Dutch and build levees (New Orleans, anyone?) or make like Venice. As areas on the earth become dustbowls, others will become arable and agriculture (and populations) will move.
We will improvise, adapt, overcome. It's what we do.
What we will not do (I sincerely hope) is put all power into central planning in order to stave off "global climate change" by enforcing draconian rules designed to reduce or eliminate "greenhouse gas emissions."
"What we will not do (I sincerely hope) is put all power into central planning in order to stave off "global climate change" by enforcing draconian rules designed to reduce or eliminate "greenhouse gas emissions."
Or selectively apply that central planning to the masses while the elite fly around in corporate jets and cruise in stretch limos. Because that is the real purpose of this climate change bullshit. The desire of the elites to keep the masses in their places and make us grovel in the dirt and tug our forelocks at out betters.
All of this is just another means for the elites to put Jeffersonian Democracy in the shit can of history. They have been trying for 200 years and unfortunately many in our populace seem to want to help them every step of the way.
Uh, DJ? Check your stats. "Compound growth of the population of the planet"? Erlich's "population bomb" was a dud. Population growth is decelerating. By current projections, (IIRC) the Earth's population of humans is supposed to level off at about 9.22 billion in 2075. After that is anybody's guess.
The suggestion has been made that advances in medical technology will inflate this number somewhat as median ages will increase, but the general belief is that human popuations will stop breeding above replacement level. Population trends indicate this.
If you don't think the world can support 9 and a quarter billion people, you haven't flown over the midwest of the United States, much less Africa.
I thought the more immediate problem for the environment was that China is going to eat the planet alive. Aren't the Chinese opening approximately one new coal plant per day? Since two of the biggest emitters -- China and India -- are unwilling to halt or reverse all this industrialization, what's the point of anyone else making gestures in terms of reducing emissions?
Meanwhile, Russian scientists claim that global climate change is a natural response to solar emission cycles, which makes sense to me, especially since other planets have been showing global climate changes as well. The Russkies think we have reached the maximum in terms of global warming and are, in fact, headed for many years of global cooling. So now we're back to the impending ice age we were warned about thirty years ago.
I live in the midwest of the United States, Kevin, and have for 54 years. There's lots of space here, most of it used in growing food.
You can predict the population of the future to be most anything you want in whatever year you want just by making assumptions, such as about rates of reproduction along the way. The difficulty is in justifying the assumptions. The arithmetic is simple but making the assumptions is not.
In particular, I find the notion of predicting behaviors of people 75 years in the future to be rather fatuous. Nearly all of such people haven't yet been born, and will not have ever known a world that is not quite crowded. To them, that crowding will be "normal".
As you noted, "We will improvise, adapt, overcome." Yup. That means resources will likely be used with greater efficiency, but compound growth of population means they will also be used at a greater rate. Greater efficiency has limits and produces diminishing returns, but compound growth produces exponentially increasing demands. Eventually, growth wins the race and efficiency loses.
If at some point people reproduce at a lower enough rate to stabilize the population size, there will have to be a reason. Malthus was right in his analysis of how the mechanism works, but he published his famous essay at the dawn of the age of industrialization. He wrote of the mechanisms by which population would be limited, but he did not accurately predict the improvements in technology by which those mechanisms would be applied in his future. Thus, he was no more accurate with his predictions in detail than was Erlich.
So, what makes you think your predictions, or those you support, are more accurate? What assumptions do you make that lead to a prediction that the net rate of reproduction will reduce to the point that the population will stabilize? To put it in more personal terms, why will people reproduce at a lower rate?
I will not predict that there will be a sudden, or even gradual, increase in the intelligence of the species, nor will I predict that there will be a sudden, or even gradual, reduction of the urge to merge. What is left but a reduction forced by limited availability of resources per capita?
I note that the population of the world has increased by a factor of 2.5 during my lifetime, and it continues apace. Let's put a fine spin on your question, "If you don't think the world can support 9 and a quarter billion people ..." If it can, it means either that it barely can, in which case the population will be limited by Malthusian factors, or that it can handily, in which case the population will continue to grow. To believe otherwise is to credit the average reproducer with a level of intelligence that they don't exhibit now and never have.
"To believe otherwise is to credit the average reproducer with a level of intelligence that they don't exhibit now and never have."
So, the population of Italy (very negative reproductive rate) is more intelligent than that of its neighbors? The population of Japan is admittedly pretty bright, but I don't think that explains their less-than-replacement birthrate.
As the Dilbert cartoon put it, "Intelligence has much less practical application than you'd think."
The fact of the matter is, birthrates decline with increasing societal affluence. As far as I can tell, children stop being an asset and start being a financial burden - thus an economic decision to control birthrates becomes A) possible, and B) desirable. So long as the global economy continues to grow (a rising tide lifts all boats) then affluence will continue to spread - and birthrates will eventually peak.
But, I could be wrong. We might very well drown in our own waste. Or we might wipe out half the population in a cataclysmic war. Or a meteor could slam into Earth (again). Or Yellowstone could make Krakatoa look like a Fourth of July sparkler (again). Pick your disaster and put on your "The End Is Near" sandwich board.
"In particular, I find the notion of predicting behaviors of people 75 years in the future to be rather fatuous."
That's about the way I find the notion of predicting the weather 75 years hence.
If they'd been on the spot to measure the original and final conditions, I'm sure they could have done much better. The error bar is due to the uncertainty in their data. Do you estimate the likely yield of mines before they're fully drilled out to determine their extent? Are the error bars any smaller?
Tell me when you see a real religion reversing course.
Judaism to Christianity. Catholicism to Protestantims. Greek and Russian Orthodox. Sufi, Shiia, and Sunni Islam...
Need I go on?
No, you've quite adequately proven my point. None of those examples represent reversals. The Jews neither all decided that Christianity was right, nor vice versa. Ditto the fission of Orthodox and Roman Catholicism, to Lutherans, to the myriad Protestant sects today. Ditto all the muslim branches. None of their tenets have actual evidence to back them up, evidence which convinces all but a tiny minority that one branch is right and (most important) leads to discovery of further evidence.
It was only about a century ago that the geologists were certain that the Earth was many millions of years old, while the astronomers were likewise pretty sure that the Sun couldn't be more than a few hundred thousand years old because neither chemical reactions nor gravity could power it for any longer. The discovery of radioactivity brought them together. How many sects of astrophysicists are there today? How many different versions of physics do they preach? Is there a schism between them and the geologists?
Take the much more recent examples of the conversion from static crust to continental drift in geology, and the overwhelming acceptance of the Big Bang after the detection of the cosmic background radiation. Most of the people on the wrong side accepted the data and reversed themselves. There are a few iconoclasts and cranks, but there are not multiple sects. And you see the same in every science you care to name.
Put that way, it really proves how silly the "science is religion" slander is.
Global Warming - which may in fact be occurring, and might even be influenced by human generated carbon emissions - has become a religion for many, many people
Now you've moved the goalposts. You've changed from the scientific theories and their underlying evidence (which either supports or contradicts any useful claims, with varying degrees of uncertainty) with the popular understanding thereof. Well, guess what: the average human being is neither extremely bright nor very well-informed on the minutae. They don't have access to the detailed information on these matters, and would probably have trouble understanding it if they did. They have to accept the word of others that it is consistent and reliable.
Just as you and I have to accept the word of others, because even if we had the brains and the time to go over all the data and repeat the process, we couldn't do it for more than a tiny fraction of everything we need to take into account when making large-scale policy... or voting for representatives to do it for us.
Just because they worship, doesn't mean they understand. Get the difference?
What you are doing is basically condemning people who aren't PhD climate scientists but take the conclusions seriously based on the most trustworthy information available and want to do the right thing. As a self-declared freethinker, I thought you were better than that.
We're human beings. We'll adapt our environment to suit ourselves. It's what we do. It's what sets us apart from the other species.
And the anti-GW people are trying to keep the world suitable for humans and our favorite plants and animals, instead of tilting it toward woody vines over trees, algae scum over coral, and old-growth forests over opportunistic species. Why do you speak so badly of them?
But even if the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to the changing climate we're not going to stop burning fossil fuels.
No, we'll do it because climate change will otherwise lead to harm to ourselves, including but not limited to war. Besides, getting ourselves off oil and coal could be a strategic move, with first-mover advantages.
"The fact of the matter is, birthrates decline with increasing societal affluence. As far as I can tell, children stop being an asset and start being a financial burden - thus an economic decision to control birthrates becomes A) possible, and B) desirable."
That's certainly true now, and it will probably still be mostly true in a century, but in the really long term, there's a problem. Some people are insensitive to economic and societal pressures against overbreeding. It might be cultural (like fundamentalist Catholics), it might be plain genetically-caused stupidity and irresponsibility, but it happens - and they often pass this characteristic on to their children.
Now, if Ebenezer Scrooge ran the world, this wouldn't matter in the long run. They'd breed more kids than they could support, and then they'd all starve "and reduce the excess population." But actually, the only countries where poor kids do starve to death are the ones where most of the population is poor and breeding like crazy. (Except maybe for China, but other problems are going to arise from their coercive approach.) As long wealthy liberal welfare states survive, they'll be evolving towards a population that cannot or will not effectively use birth control, no matter the cost...
Second problem - denser populations make socialism politically more acceptable, so the more you need the Scrooge solution, the less likely it will be adopted.
Third problem - the mathematics of geometric progression means that any breeding rate that does not incorporate a lot of feedback from the current population vs. resources and room will be disastrous in the very, very long run. If it persistently stays even the tiniest bit above replacement, there's a time in the future when the entire mass of the galaxy would have to be converted to human bodies (or realistically, the Scrooge solution or worse is finally applied by the laws of nature, since the politicians wouldn't do it). If it persistently stays even the tiniest bit below replacement, the human race will eventually disappear. It's only if negative feedback is effective that the population/resources ratio can stay within bounds.
Take the much more recent examples of the conversion from static crust to continental drift in geology, and the overwhelming acceptance of the Big Bang after the detection of the cosmic background radiation. Most of the people on the wrong side accepted the data and reversed themselves. There are a few iconoclasts and cranks, but there are not multiple sects.
There are a few prominent and highly-respected astronomers who still don't buy the big bang, such as Geoffrey Burbidge. These people are not written off as cranks in the astronomical community. In astronomy and physics you are allowed to dissent without being treated like an apostate.
How many sects of astrophysicists are there today? How many different versions of physics do they preach?
When it comes to areas that are not well-established, such as extra-terrestrial life, different versions are in fact taught in classes. There are other lines along which astrophysicists are divided, sometimes quite passionately. Dark matter, dark energy, string theory, cosmological models, multiple universes -- all are still hotly debated. My first year in grad school I sat in on a cosmology talk in which I thought an argument between Steven Weinberg and Marc Kamionkowski was going to come to blows. Last semester the chair of my department angrily referred to multiple-universe proponents as religionists. And you might be surprised to know that a highly-respected researcher in my department specializes in alternative theories for gravity. Even when there is overwhelming and seemingly incontrovertible evidence, nobody in physics ever says the debate is over. Which gets to the root of what bothers me and a lot of other people about the global climate issue -- the so-called consensus, the eagerness to close off debate, the way dissenters are labeled and shunned. This is not how science operates.
But it is how advocacy gets funded. Again, let me quote Patrick Moore:
"Nobody's going to listen to you if you say the world is not gonna come to an end, but if you say the world is coming to an end you get headlines.
--
"The environmental movement was basically hijacked by political and social activists who came in and very cleverly learned how to use green rhetoric, or green language, to cloak agendas that actually had more to do with anti-corporatism, anti-globalization, anti-business, and very little to do with science or ecology."
So long as the global economy continues to grow (a rising tide lifts all boats) then affluence will continue to spread - and birthrates will eventually peak.
Such predictions may or may not be true. They are also irrelevant to the point I stated that led to this digression.
What goes hand-in-hand with rising affluence? Rising use of resources per capita, right? And what goes hand-in-hand with rising population? Rising use of resources in total, right? Now consider both of these "risings" and see what the effect is on efforts to reduce or eliminate "greenhouse gas emissions".
China is a good current example to use for illustration. As Sarah noted, "Aren't the Chinese opening approximately one new coal plant per day?" The Chinese population has discovered automobiles, too, and are now building their own. The rising use of gasoline in China is one big factor in the recent increasing demand for oil, which is one big factor in the recent increasing rise of the price of gasoline here. Imagine the greater emission of greenhouse gases when several billion Chinese drive automobiles home from work instead of bicycles, and use a lot of coal-generated electricity when they get there. Imagine the greater emission of greenhouse gases when the whole world does the same.
Reducing greenhouse emissions per capita at a given level of affluence would likely be swamped out by the rising percentage of the population that is affluent, now wouldn't it? And so, greenhouse emissions in total would likely rise despite such reductions per capita as a result of the rising population, who either rise like rabbits to enormous numbers or rise as affluent consumers, now wouldn't it?
The significance is not simply in the rise in population, it is in the consumption of resources by that rising population. Not only does the capita increase, the consumption per capita increases. Efficiency and "draconian rules" lose.
I didn't elaborate my point much when I made it, Kevin, but you seem to have missed the significance of it. Rising population will likely swamp out efforts to live more efficiently, i.e. to live under "draconian rules designed to reduce or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions." If you think this is wrong, or is inconsistent with your notions of population growth, tell me why.
Markm:
... the mathematics of geometric progression means that any breeding rate that does not incorporate a lot of feedback from the current population vs. resources and room will be disastrous in the very, very long run. If it persistently stays even the tiniest bit above replacement, there's a time in the future ...
Yup. It's the ultimate very, very long run that I was writing about.
There are a few prominent and highly-respected astronomers who still don't buy the big bang, such as Geoffrey Burbidge.
I did also say "iconoclasts". Though I wonder what explanation Burbridge has for all the evidence; if he has a model as good as the Big Bang plus inflation, it's getting remarkably little attention in the popular science press. And if he has none, why does anyone respect him? What has he done to earn it?
When it comes to areas that are not well-established, such as extra-terrestrial life, different versions are in fact taught in classes.
You mean, when it comes to areas which have little or no data. In the absence of data, many widely-varying theories remain consistent with what is known and may be useful models of reality.
Despite the attempts of G. W. Bush to shut down NASA's "Mission to Planet Earth" (ironically, promoted by his father) before it reveals any more unpleasant truths, there's plenty of data to support climate science.
And you might be surprised to know that a highly-respected researcher in my department specializes in alternative theories for gravity.
No I wouldn't. It's far from my area of expertise, but I know how long theorists have tried to bring QM and General Relativity together, without success. It's taken a decade or more over schedule just to fly experiments to test Einstein's predictions about frame-dragging. It remains impossible to perform experiments around extreme gravity fields, because we have none available. Disparate theories flourish in the absence of good data, and we cannot tell which ones conform to reality and which ones are nonsense.
We have several planetary atmospheres available for observation, and good ways to test models. Climate science is based on a much more solid body of evidence than quantum gravity.
Which gets to the root of what bothers me and a lot of other people about the global climate issue -- the so-called consensus, the eagerness to close off debate, the way dissenters are labeled and shunned. This is not how science operates.
Now you've shifted the goalposts too. The "dissenters" you are talking about are not the scientific iconoclasts, who want to research alternatives to the standard model — you are talking about obstructionists, who are trying to block public policies which try to counteract the increasingly-obvious ill effects of Business As Usual.
This is not Big Bang vs. Steady State, where nothing serious is (yet) at stake. This is the Poliovirus Vaccinationists vs. the Demon Possessionists. The Demon Possessionists are certain that the epidemics are due to demons having their way with a godless populace... oh, and they're also doing a brisk business in iron lungs.
We've seen the same thing again just a few years ago, where autism activists eager to pin blame decided that vaccine preservatives were responsible for their family tragedies. They were wrong, as was proven by a large and growing body of evidence, but they refused to stop making their erroneous claims. Their decision to blame the MMR vaccine and some parents' fear of protecting their children has resulted in disease outbreaks and unnecessary deaths. Sound like any other controversies you know?
There comes a point where refusal to go along with a well-supported conclusion (which does not mean abandoning the right to search for contrary data) is downright perverse. Nobody's telling the climate "skeptics" to stop trying to find alternate explanations for what's going on. What we're telling them is that 50% certainty requires action, and even 10% likelihood justifies insurance. Instead they demand that nothing be done against their interests unless there is no possibility that they're wrong, and set an impossible standard of proof.
The abstinence-only camp of sex "educators" has nothing on this bunch of liars.
And Kevin writes:
The environmental movement was basically hijacked by political and social activists who came in and very cleverly learned how to use green rhetoric...."
... which is easily distinguished because it consists mostly of tendentious policy proposals. The science is a very different thing, and any thinker worth his salt can tell the difference.
I forgot to add: the way to get rid of the hard-left political activists isn't to let them be the only ones taking the science seriously. The way to get rid of them is to take the science seriously yourself, and make serious and direct (as opposed to tendentious and politically self-serving) policy based on it.
Though I wonder what explanation Burbridge has for all the evidence; if he has a model as good as the Big Bang plus inflation, it's getting remarkably little attention in the popular science press. And if he has none, why does anyone respect him? What has he done to earn it?
Burbidge believes in some kind of oscillatory explanation, which I don't know much about. He says the universe is quasi-steady state. As for what he's done to earn his place in astronomy, it is substantial. For one, he and his wife, along with Fred Hoyle, showed how heavier elements are manufactured inside stars through nucleosynthesis. Burbidge isn't even regarded as an iconoclast (the term doesn't apply, anyway, since Burbidge is the one trying to hold onto an old tradition in spite of the evidence). He's perhaps a tiny bit eccentric (doesn't hurt that he's British), and obviously has a philosophical preference for steady state as opposed to big bang. But, like I said, you're allowed to believe what you want in physics.
In the absence of data, many widely-varying theories remain consistent with what is known and may be useful models of reality.
We're not talking about a total absence of data, we're talking about an absence of conclusive or overwhelming data. In areas of dispute, there is almost always data. An exception to this would be the multiple-universe idea, which is currently untestable (hence the "religionist" label for its adherents). The extra-terrestrial life debate isn't just philosophical in nature. Astronomers use current data to predict the likelihood that there is (or that we'll find) extraterrestrial life. We have entire courses on this topic in our department. The point is, astronomy/physics isn't the monolith of opinion you presented it to be. It is positively overflowing with debate, as any topic of science should be.
Disparate theories flourish in the absence of good data, and we cannot tell which ones conform to reality and which ones are nonsense.
You were saying this in the context of alternate theories for gravity, but we don't have an absence of "good data" with respect to gravity. We have loads and loads of good evidence. What we're lacking is, as you say, data from direct experiments in extreme environments. Meanwhile, we have indirect evidence of extreme gravitational effects. And we don't have disparate theories of gravity. I'm not talking about wedding QM to GR. We have Newton and Einstein, both of which work extremely well in the macro world. Yet people pursue alternate theories to this. Why? Because, as has been shown in science over and over and over, they know that Newton and Einstein are probably not the whole story. Where in climate science is this the case?
The "dissenters" you are talking about are not the scientific iconoclasts, who want to research alternatives to the standard model — you are talking about obstructionists, who are trying to block public policies which try to counteract the increasingly-obvious ill effects of Business As Usual.
You realize the irony of your use of the word "iconoclast" here? Maybe Freud was right. In any case, you demonstrated my point: "obstructionists." You find a label that is appropriately demeaning for your purposes and write these people off. The problem for you is, it is not increasingly-obvious to many, many of us out there. In astrophysics, people take the exact same set of data and often come to different conclusions. When this happens in climate science, how do you decide whom to believe? Are both sides presented to the public? Also, nowhere in astrophysics, and I mean nowhere, do you get pronouncements of fact based on computer models. Isn't that what all the doom-and-gloom climate prognosticating is based on? Computer models? Models are not fact. They are predictions, which are heavily influenced by assumptions.
This is not Big Bang vs. Steady State, where nothing serious is (yet) at stake.
Then again, maybe there is something serious at stake, but most people haven't given it enough thought to be concerned. Big bang is philosophically unappealing to some people in science because of its theological implications. Who knows, maybe this is why Burbidge sticks to steady-state. But in a 1989 editorial, it was obvious that John Maddox, physics editor for Nature magazine and self-declared atheist, wanted desperately for big bang theory to go away. (Fodder for future debate!)
What we're telling them is that 50% certainty requires action, and even 10% likelihood justifies insurance. Instead they demand that nothing be done against their interests unless there is no possibility that they're wrong, and set an impossible standard of proof.
This is what people don't buy. Why does 50% certainty require action? Why does 10% require caution? Those numbers are completely arbitrary. Is 50% certainty where the term "very likely" in the report comes from? When I took statistics, 50% didn't equate to "very likely." For me to claim a result in my papers, I have to be at least 99% certain. Why don't similar standards apply to climate science?
But let's turn what you said around. You demand that something be done against the interests of a lot of people, even when there is a distinct possibility that you are wrong, and you set ridiculously low standards for yourselves.
Larry King recently interviewed four people on his show about global climate change, two on each side of the debate (such as it is). Most interesting was what the economist had to say about the economic impact of implementing the kinds of changes you're talking about. This is why people are "obstructionist" about implementing vast changes. From the transcript:
JULIAN MORRIS, ECONOMIST, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL POLICY NETWORK: Well, I think it's worth comparing the real problems which are facing the world today with the scenarios that are being predicted for the future.
Every year, at the moment, about 10 million children die of preventable and curable diseases, and yet we're concerned that some time far in the future, a few hundred thousand people, maybe a few million people, at most, might suffer in some unknown way as a result of climate change. But the same people who predict massive climate changes also predict that in order for those climate changes to occur, we would have had enormous amounts of economic growth.
So the poorest people in the world will no longer be poor. In fact, they will be richer than the richest people in the world are today. Average per capita incomes in the poorest parts of the world are less than $1,000 U.S. per year per capita. In 50 years time, those are predicted to be greater than the current levels for the richest part of the world, i.e. more than about $30,000 U.S. which is average per capita income in places like the U.K. and other parts of Europe...
KING: So...
MORRIS: So the question is...
KING: So what the environment is doing will be meaningless to them?
MORRIS: Well, the reality is that in the future, people will be wealthy enough to adapt to pretty much...
KING: Wow!
MORRIS: ... any change that is likely to happen.
KING: I see.
MORRIS: I mean, barring absolute global catastrophe, we'll be able to manage the situation.
KING: I've got you.
MORRIS: So the question is, is whether we want to spend vast resources today to prevent something that might happen way downstream in the future.
The way to get rid of them is to take the science seriously yourself, and make serious and direct (as opposed to tendentious and politically self-serving) policy based on it.
We are taking the science seriously. Hence, debate. So are you referring to scientists who conclude -- from actual data -- that climate change is natural, i.e. not driven by human activity? In any case, I think what you mean is that we're not taking you seriously. And I could not possibly describe junk policy like Kyoto any better than "tendentious and politically self-serving."
Y'all might want to read the first item in Taranto's Best of the Web for today (02/09/07) http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/. It is dead on point and nicely done.
Here is the money quote:
Above all, we can't stand to be bullied. And what is it but an act of bullying to deny that there is any room for honest disagreement, to insist that those of us who are unpersuaded are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers, that we are not merely mistaken but evil?
Our skepticism rests largely on intuition. The global-warmists speak with a certainty that is more reminiscent of religious zeal than scientific inquiry. Their demands to cast out all doubt seem antithetical to science, which is founded on doubt. The theory of global warming fits too conveniently with their pre-existing political ideologies. (Granted, we too are vulnerable to that last criticism.)
I think the salient point here is that when it comes to science, having unfortuate bedfellows isn't really all that exculpatory.
Are their Chicken Littles out there saying ridiculous things?
Sure.
But the plain reality is that climatologists are largely able to defend their work from skeptics in convincing fashion. We ARE warming the planet with fossil fuel emissions. At this point, denying that is little different than denying gravity or atomic theory or evolution. The fact that some fringe characters take that science and run with it toward a bizzare agenda is irrelevant, really--the science is there, and apparently sound.
But the plain reality is also that the sun is getting warmer, too. The science is there, too, and apparently sound. So, there are two reasons why the earth is getting warmer.
What percentage of the warming is due to each cause? Beats me. I stated before that I haven't studied the matter (meaning I've largely ignored the shouting and such), but I don't recall seeing any analysis which purports to say.
I've ignored the shouting because I find it irritating that the AlGore's of the movement scream about the one cause and simply ignore the other, and as James Taranto noted, vilify those who don't do the same.
Here's an interesting thing to watch for in the future. Suppose, way down the pike, that the sun is found to be the minor player. How much of the "Chicken Little effect" will mute the world's response? Indeed, how much is it muting the world's response now?
What seems to be the dogma is that we (meaning American and other Westerners, mainly) must reduce carbon dioxide emissions with a significant reduction of living standards.
But there are other options, which are rarely explored. Adaptation, for example. Or massive use of nuclear power, for electricity but also heat source.
All options have pros and cons, but the discussions seems very lopsided.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-bullshit.html (30 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Michael Crichton has some great speeches on his website about modern environmentalism: http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/index.html
Here's the one that explicitly desribes environmentalism as religion: http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html
I'm waiting as patiently as possible for someone to tell me that 'a cow died for your steak!' so I can respond "No, billions of cattle lived so I could have this steak."
If possible I'll explain that cows make very poor pets.
One proof that it's a religious article of faith is when anything and everything can be ascribed to the same anecdotal source: it's hotter because of global-warming, it's colder because of global-warming, it snowed more, it rained more, it snowed less, it rained less, El-Nino, arctice ice is melting, antarctic ice is piling up - ad-nauseum, etc.
It continually amazes me that people who comment the loudest about "global warming" have the least apparent understanding of the difference between weather and climate. Such statements as, "Gobal warming is a myth because it's snowing" typify that.
I don't have an opinion about global warming either way. I haven't studied the issue. I'm simply annoyed at those who think they have and yet make statements which show they haven't.
The polemic makes the typical confusion between scientific evidence and popular followings. Hint: even if someone started a cult where the wave/particle duality of light is one of the mysteries, it wouldn't turn physics into religion.
If any religion had as much confirmed, repeatable evidence behind it as anthropogenic global warming, nobody would talk about "needing faith". The evidence is solid, and we even have good evidence that human activity is responsible for this particularly long interglacial period.
Last, forestry has gotten a bad name under Republican administrations. Does it make sense to cut the last stands of old-growth timber to make 2x4's? (That's what they did.) Similarly, does it make sense to convert rain forest growing on peat bogs to palm-oil plantations, in order to make bio-fuel to generate electricity in Holland? (People are deciding that it's a huge mistake.) Tell me when you see a real religion reversing course.
If you're looking for dogma here, you won't find it. People reversing course on particular biofuels because of the consequences is the opposite of dogmatism. People calling for more data collection (which would disprove the thesis, if the thesis was wrong) are not dogmatic. Yet it's the Bush administration which has been taking apart the earth-science mission of NASA, to prevent the collection of troublesome facts. (It's been closing and dispersing EPA libraries for the same reason.)
I'm sorry, Kevin, but you're off-base here.
E-P:
I read the papers. Who wrote the second one, or was it a translation?
"...peat degradation alone accounts for 97-238 million tonnes of carbon being emitted every year from South-east Asia..."
Ninety-seven to 238 million tons? What precision!
"Tell me when you see a real religion reversing course."
Judaism to Christianity. Catholicism to Protestantims. Greek and Russian Orthodox. Sufi, Shiia, and Sunni Islam...
Need I go on? And those are just the ones who purportedly believe in the god Abraham worshipped.
Global Warming - which may in fact be occurring, and might even be influenced by human generated carbon emissions - has become a religion for many, many people - just as global cooling, the "population bomb," "Silent Spring," etc. did. Only now the funding is better.
Just because they worship, doesn't mean they understand. Get the difference?
Climate change happens. Climate is not steady-state. Hey, if the first paper is right, "man-made global warming" was a good thing. The earth has been hot and swampy before. It's been an ice-ball before. Both long before humans strode the surface.
We're human beings. We'll adapt our environment to suit ourselves. It's what we do. It's what sets us apart from the other species.
We're human beings. We'll adapt our environment to suit ourselves. It's what we do. It's what sets us apart from the other species.
So does any species that builds nests. So do elephants, who denude whole forests and who create water holes. So do feral hogs, who eat anything and who turn midwestern woodlands into wastelands. So do prairie dogs, who turn pastureland into the equivalent of minefields.
You're on thin ice, Kevin. You are perilously close to saying, "It's what we do, so it must be OK." No, adapting an environment to suit oneself is not OK if it is aptly described as fouling one's own nest. We're all in this nest called earth, and we're capable of fouling the hell out of it.
It would be hilarious if it didn't impact my life. Sort of like the flat earth society of our time. And though I like to believe in environmental issues that are real and can be changed (some things are just harsh, deal with it), these people make me want to do just the opposite. I honestly am trying to enlarge my co2 footprint. I envy Gore on this one issue. Carnaval freaks and intellectual bottom feeders, these people are wearing paint, hating my country, capitalism, Christianity... Hmmm, thought we took care of the natives centuries ago. Where is my boom stick, brb...
DJ, this is why I hope to add to this post in the future, but here's the short-form:
The climate is changing. Surprise! It does that. It always has. with or without our influence. Since the evidence shows that Mars seems to be warming, then I find the idea that Earth is warming too not too shocking. But even if the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to the changing climate we're not going to stop burning fossil fuels. The U.S. won't. EUrope won't. India won't. China won't. Hydrocarbons are the only source of energy that are economically feasible and accessible for the short- and medium-term future.
So, as the climate changes, regardless of why, humans will adapt. If the seas rise and coastal cities become inundated, we'll make like the Dutch and build levees (New Orleans, anyone?) or make like Venice. As areas on the earth become dustbowls, others will become arable and agriculture (and populations) will move.
We will improvise, adapt, overcome. It's what we do.
What we will not do (I sincerely hope) is put all power into central planning in order to stave off "global climate change" by enforcing draconian rules designed to reduce or eliminate "greenhouse gas emissions."
Fuck that.
"What we will not do (I sincerely hope) is put all power into central planning in order to stave off "global climate change" by enforcing draconian rules designed to reduce or eliminate "greenhouse gas emissions."
Or selectively apply that central planning to the masses while the elite fly around in corporate jets and cruise in stretch limos. Because that is the real purpose of this climate change bullshit. The desire of the elites to keep the masses in their places and make us grovel in the dirt and tug our forelocks at out betters.
All of this is just another means for the elites to put Jeffersonian Democracy in the shit can of history. They have been trying for 200 years and unfortunately many in our populace seem to want to help them every step of the way.
I agree, Kevin.
And to take it further, anything we do now will ultimately be swamped by compound growth of the population of the planet.
Uh, DJ? Check your stats. "Compound growth of the population of the planet"? Erlich's "population bomb" was a dud. Population growth is decelerating. By current projections, (IIRC) the Earth's population of humans is supposed to level off at about 9.22 billion in 2075. After that is anybody's guess.
The suggestion has been made that advances in medical technology will inflate this number somewhat as median ages will increase, but the general belief is that human popuations will stop breeding above replacement level. Population trends indicate this.
If you don't think the world can support 9 and a quarter billion people, you haven't flown over the midwest of the United States, much less Africa.
I thought the more immediate problem for the environment was that China is going to eat the planet alive. Aren't the Chinese opening approximately one new coal plant per day? Since two of the biggest emitters -- China and India -- are unwilling to halt or reverse all this industrialization, what's the point of anyone else making gestures in terms of reducing emissions?
Meanwhile, Russian scientists claim that global climate change is a natural response to solar emission cycles, which makes sense to me, especially since other planets have been showing global climate changes as well. The Russkies think we have reached the maximum in terms of global warming and are, in fact, headed for many years of global cooling. So now we're back to the impending ice age we were warned about thirty years ago.
I live in the midwest of the United States, Kevin, and have for 54 years. There's lots of space here, most of it used in growing food.
You can predict the population of the future to be most anything you want in whatever year you want just by making assumptions, such as about rates of reproduction along the way. The difficulty is in justifying the assumptions. The arithmetic is simple but making the assumptions is not.
In particular, I find the notion of predicting behaviors of people 75 years in the future to be rather fatuous. Nearly all of such people haven't yet been born, and will not have ever known a world that is not quite crowded. To them, that crowding will be "normal".
As you noted, "We will improvise, adapt, overcome." Yup. That means resources will likely be used with greater efficiency, but compound growth of population means they will also be used at a greater rate. Greater efficiency has limits and produces diminishing returns, but compound growth produces exponentially increasing demands. Eventually, growth wins the race and efficiency loses.
If at some point people reproduce at a lower enough rate to stabilize the population size, there will have to be a reason. Malthus was right in his analysis of how the mechanism works, but he published his famous essay at the dawn of the age of industrialization. He wrote of the mechanisms by which population would be limited, but he did not accurately predict the improvements in technology by which those mechanisms would be applied in his future. Thus, he was no more accurate with his predictions in detail than was Erlich.
So, what makes you think your predictions, or those you support, are more accurate? What assumptions do you make that lead to a prediction that the net rate of reproduction will reduce to the point that the population will stabilize? To put it in more personal terms, why will people reproduce at a lower rate?
I will not predict that there will be a sudden, or even gradual, increase in the intelligence of the species, nor will I predict that there will be a sudden, or even gradual, reduction of the urge to merge. What is left but a reduction forced by limited availability of resources per capita?
I note that the population of the world has increased by a factor of 2.5 during my lifetime, and it continues apace. Let's put a fine spin on your question, "If you don't think the world can support 9 and a quarter billion people ..." If it can, it means either that it barely can, in which case the population will be limited by Malthusian factors, or that it can handily, in which case the population will continue to grow. To believe otherwise is to credit the average reproducer with a level of intelligence that they don't exhibit now and never have.
"To believe otherwise is to credit the average reproducer with a level of intelligence that they don't exhibit now and never have."
So, the population of Italy (very negative reproductive rate) is more intelligent than that of its neighbors? The population of Japan is admittedly pretty bright, but I don't think that explains their less-than-replacement birthrate.
As the Dilbert cartoon put it, "Intelligence has much less practical application than you'd think."
The fact of the matter is, birthrates decline with increasing societal affluence. As far as I can tell, children stop being an asset and start being a financial burden - thus an economic decision to control birthrates becomes A) possible, and B) desirable. So long as the global economy continues to grow (a rising tide lifts all boats) then affluence will continue to spread - and birthrates will eventually peak.
But, I could be wrong. We might very well drown in our own waste. Or we might wipe out half the population in a cataclysmic war. Or a meteor could slam into Earth (again). Or Yellowstone could make Krakatoa look like a Fourth of July sparkler (again). Pick your disaster and put on your "The End Is Near" sandwich board.
"In particular, I find the notion of predicting behaviors of people 75 years in the future to be rather fatuous."
That's about the way I find the notion of predicting the weather 75 years hence.
To each his own particular belief, I suppose.
If they'd been on the spot to measure the original and final conditions, I'm sure they could have done much better. The error bar is due to the uncertainty in their data. Do you estimate the likely yield of mines before they're fully drilled out to determine their extent? Are the error bars any smaller?
No, you've quite adequately proven my point. None of those examples represent reversals. The Jews neither all decided that Christianity was right, nor vice versa. Ditto the fission of Orthodox and Roman Catholicism, to Lutherans, to the myriad Protestant sects today. Ditto all the muslim branches. None of their tenets have actual evidence to back them up, evidence which convinces all but a tiny minority that one branch is right and (most important) leads to discovery of further evidence.
It was only about a century ago that the geologists were certain that the Earth was many millions of years old, while the astronomers were likewise pretty sure that the Sun couldn't be more than a few hundred thousand years old because neither chemical reactions nor gravity could power it for any longer. The discovery of radioactivity brought them together. How many sects of astrophysicists are there today? How many different versions of physics do they preach? Is there a schism between them and the geologists?
Take the much more recent examples of the conversion from static crust to continental drift in geology, and the overwhelming acceptance of the Big Bang after the detection of the cosmic background radiation. Most of the people on the wrong side accepted the data and reversed themselves. There are a few iconoclasts and cranks, but there are not multiple sects. And you see the same in every science you care to name.
Put that way, it really proves how silly the "science is religion" slander is.
Now you've moved the goalposts. You've changed from the scientific theories and their underlying evidence (which either supports or contradicts any useful claims, with varying degrees of uncertainty) with the popular understanding thereof. Well, guess what: the average human being is neither extremely bright nor very well-informed on the minutae. They don't have access to the detailed information on these matters, and would probably have trouble understanding it if they did. They have to accept the word of others that it is consistent and reliable.
Just as you and I have to accept the word of others, because even if we had the brains and the time to go over all the data and repeat the process, we couldn't do it for more than a tiny fraction of everything we need to take into account when making large-scale policy... or voting for representatives to do it for us.
What you are doing is basically condemning people who aren't PhD climate scientists but take the conclusions seriously based on the most trustworthy information available and want to do the right thing. As a self-declared freethinker, I thought you were better than that.
And the anti-GW people are trying to keep the world suitable for humans and our favorite plants and animals, instead of tilting it toward woody vines over trees, algae scum over coral, and old-growth forests over opportunistic species. Why do you speak so badly of them?
No, we'll do it because climate change will otherwise lead to harm to ourselves, including but not limited to war. Besides, getting ourselves off oil and coal could be a strategic move, with first-mover advantages.
"The fact of the matter is, birthrates decline with increasing societal affluence. As far as I can tell, children stop being an asset and start being a financial burden - thus an economic decision to control birthrates becomes A) possible, and B) desirable."
That's certainly true now, and it will probably still be mostly true in a century, but in the really long term, there's a problem. Some people are insensitive to economic and societal pressures against overbreeding. It might be cultural (like fundamentalist Catholics), it might be plain genetically-caused stupidity and irresponsibility, but it happens - and they often pass this characteristic on to their children.
Now, if Ebenezer Scrooge ran the world, this wouldn't matter in the long run. They'd breed more kids than they could support, and then they'd all starve "and reduce the excess population." But actually, the only countries where poor kids do starve to death are the ones where most of the population is poor and breeding like crazy. (Except maybe for China, but other problems are going to arise from their coercive approach.) As long wealthy liberal welfare states survive, they'll be evolving towards a population that cannot or will not effectively use birth control, no matter the cost...
Second problem - denser populations make socialism politically more acceptable, so the more you need the Scrooge solution, the less likely it will be adopted.
Third problem - the mathematics of geometric progression means that any breeding rate that does not incorporate a lot of feedback from the current population vs. resources and room will be disastrous in the very, very long run. If it persistently stays even the tiniest bit above replacement, there's a time in the future when the entire mass of the galaxy would have to be converted to human bodies (or realistically, the Scrooge solution or worse is finally applied by the laws of nature, since the politicians wouldn't do it). If it persistently stays even the tiniest bit below replacement, the human race will eventually disappear. It's only if negative feedback is effective that the population/resources ratio can stay within bounds.
Take the much more recent examples of the conversion from static crust to continental drift in geology, and the overwhelming acceptance of the Big Bang after the detection of the cosmic background radiation. Most of the people on the wrong side accepted the data and reversed themselves. There are a few iconoclasts and cranks, but there are not multiple sects.
There are a few prominent and highly-respected astronomers who still don't buy the big bang, such as Geoffrey Burbidge. These people are not written off as cranks in the astronomical community. In astronomy and physics you are allowed to dissent without being treated like an apostate.
How many sects of astrophysicists are there today? How many different versions of physics do they preach?
When it comes to areas that are not well-established, such as extra-terrestrial life, different versions are in fact taught in classes. There are other lines along which astrophysicists are divided, sometimes quite passionately. Dark matter, dark energy, string theory, cosmological models, multiple universes -- all are still hotly debated. My first year in grad school I sat in on a cosmology talk in which I thought an argument between Steven Weinberg and Marc Kamionkowski was going to come to blows. Last semester the chair of my department angrily referred to multiple-universe proponents as religionists. And you might be surprised to know that a highly-respected researcher in my department specializes in alternative theories for gravity. Even when there is overwhelming and seemingly incontrovertible evidence, nobody in physics ever says the debate is over. Which gets to the root of what bothers me and a lot of other people about the global climate issue -- the so-called consensus, the eagerness to close off debate, the way dissenters are labeled and shunned. This is not how science operates.
"This is not how science operates."
But it is how advocacy gets funded. Again, let me quote Patrick Moore:
"Nobody's going to listen to you if you say the world is not gonna come to an end, but if you say the world is coming to an end you get headlines.
--
"The environmental movement was basically hijacked by political and social activists who came in and very cleverly learned how to use green rhetoric, or green language, to cloak agendas that actually had more to do with anti-corporatism, anti-globalization, anti-business, and very little to do with science or ecology."
Thank you, Sarah.
Kevin:
So long as the global economy continues to grow (a rising tide lifts all boats) then affluence will continue to spread - and birthrates will eventually peak.
Such predictions may or may not be true. They are also irrelevant to the point I stated that led to this digression.
What goes hand-in-hand with rising affluence? Rising use of resources per capita, right? And what goes hand-in-hand with rising population? Rising use of resources in total, right? Now consider both of these "risings" and see what the effect is on efforts to reduce or eliminate "greenhouse gas emissions".
China is a good current example to use for illustration. As Sarah noted, "Aren't the Chinese opening approximately one new coal plant per day?" The Chinese population has discovered automobiles, too, and are now building their own. The rising use of gasoline in China is one big factor in the recent increasing demand for oil, which is one big factor in the recent increasing rise of the price of gasoline here. Imagine the greater emission of greenhouse gases when several billion Chinese drive automobiles home from work instead of bicycles, and use a lot of coal-generated electricity when they get there. Imagine the greater emission of greenhouse gases when the whole world does the same.
Reducing greenhouse emissions per capita at a given level of affluence would likely be swamped out by the rising percentage of the population that is affluent, now wouldn't it? And so, greenhouse emissions in total would likely rise despite such reductions per capita as a result of the rising population, who either rise like rabbits to enormous numbers or rise as affluent consumers, now wouldn't it?
The significance is not simply in the rise in population, it is in the consumption of resources by that rising population. Not only does the capita increase, the consumption per capita increases. Efficiency and "draconian rules" lose.
I didn't elaborate my point much when I made it, Kevin, but you seem to have missed the significance of it. Rising population will likely swamp out efforts to live more efficiently, i.e. to live under "draconian rules designed to reduce or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions." If you think this is wrong, or is inconsistent with your notions of population growth, tell me why.
Markm:
... the mathematics of geometric progression means that any breeding rate that does not incorporate a lot of feedback from the current population vs. resources and room will be disastrous in the very, very long run. If it persistently stays even the tiniest bit above replacement, there's a time in the future ...
Yup. It's the ultimate very, very long run that I was writing about.
You mean, when it comes to areas which have little or no data. In the absence of data, many widely-varying theories remain consistent with what is known and may be useful models of reality.
Despite the attempts of G. W. Bush to shut down NASA's "Mission to Planet Earth" (ironically, promoted by his father) before it reveals any more unpleasant truths, there's plenty of data to support climate science.
No I wouldn't. It's far from my area of expertise, but I know how long theorists have tried to bring QM and General Relativity together, without success. It's taken a decade or more over schedule just to fly experiments to test Einstein's predictions about frame-dragging. It remains impossible to perform experiments around extreme gravity fields, because we have none available. Disparate theories flourish in the absence of good data, and we cannot tell which ones conform to reality and which ones are nonsense.
We have several planetary atmospheres available for observation, and good ways to test models. Climate science is based on a much more solid body of evidence than quantum gravity.
Now you've shifted the goalposts too. The "dissenters" you are talking about are not the scientific iconoclasts, who want to research alternatives to the standard model — you are talking about obstructionists, who are trying to block public policies which try to counteract the increasingly-obvious ill effects of Business As Usual.
This is not Big Bang vs. Steady State, where nothing serious is (yet) at stake. This is the Poliovirus Vaccinationists vs. the Demon Possessionists. The Demon Possessionists are certain that the epidemics are due to demons having their way with a godless populace... oh, and they're also doing a brisk business in iron lungs.
We've seen the same thing again just a few years ago, where autism activists eager to pin blame decided that vaccine preservatives were responsible for their family tragedies. They were wrong, as was proven by a large and growing body of evidence, but they refused to stop making their erroneous claims. Their decision to blame the MMR vaccine and some parents' fear of protecting their children has resulted in disease outbreaks and unnecessary deaths. Sound like any other controversies you know?
There comes a point where refusal to go along with a well-supported conclusion (which does not mean abandoning the right to search for contrary data) is downright perverse. Nobody's telling the climate "skeptics" to stop trying to find alternate explanations for what's going on. What we're telling them is that 50% certainty requires action, and even 10% likelihood justifies insurance. Instead they demand that nothing be done against their interests unless there is no possibility that they're wrong, and set an impossible standard of proof.
The abstinence-only camp of sex "educators" has nothing on this bunch of liars.
And Kevin writes:... which is easily distinguished because it consists mostly of tendentious policy proposals. The science is a very different thing, and any thinker worth his salt can tell the difference.
I forgot to add: the way to get rid of the hard-left political activists isn't to let them be the only ones taking the science seriously. The way to get rid of them is to take the science seriously yourself, and make serious and direct (as opposed to tendentious and politically self-serving) policy based on it.
Though I wonder what explanation Burbridge has for all the evidence; if he has a model as good as the Big Bang plus inflation, it's getting remarkably little attention in the popular science press. And if he has none, why does anyone respect him? What has he done to earn it?
Burbidge believes in some kind of oscillatory explanation, which I don't know much about. He says the universe is quasi-steady state. As for what he's done to earn his place in astronomy, it is substantial. For one, he and his wife, along with Fred Hoyle, showed how heavier elements are manufactured inside stars through nucleosynthesis. Burbidge isn't even regarded as an iconoclast (the term doesn't apply, anyway, since Burbidge is the one trying to hold onto an old tradition in spite of the evidence). He's perhaps a tiny bit eccentric (doesn't hurt that he's British), and obviously has a philosophical preference for steady state as opposed to big bang. But, like I said, you're allowed to believe what you want in physics.
In the absence of data, many widely-varying theories remain consistent with what is known and may be useful models of reality.
We're not talking about a total absence of data, we're talking about an absence of conclusive or overwhelming data. In areas of dispute, there is almost always data. An exception to this would be the multiple-universe idea, which is currently untestable (hence the "religionist" label for its adherents). The extra-terrestrial life debate isn't just philosophical in nature. Astronomers use current data to predict the likelihood that there is (or that we'll find) extraterrestrial life. We have entire courses on this topic in our department. The point is, astronomy/physics isn't the monolith of opinion you presented it to be. It is positively overflowing with debate, as any topic of science should be.
Disparate theories flourish in the absence of good data, and we cannot tell which ones conform to reality and which ones are nonsense.
You were saying this in the context of alternate theories for gravity, but we don't have an absence of "good data" with respect to gravity. We have loads and loads of good evidence. What we're lacking is, as you say, data from direct experiments in extreme environments. Meanwhile, we have indirect evidence of extreme gravitational effects. And we don't have disparate theories of gravity. I'm not talking about wedding QM to GR. We have Newton and Einstein, both of which work extremely well in the macro world. Yet people pursue alternate theories to this. Why? Because, as has been shown in science over and over and over, they know that Newton and Einstein are probably not the whole story. Where in climate science is this the case?
The "dissenters" you are talking about are not the scientific iconoclasts, who want to research alternatives to the standard model — you are talking about obstructionists, who are trying to block public policies which try to counteract the increasingly-obvious ill effects of Business As Usual.
You realize the irony of your use of the word "iconoclast" here? Maybe Freud was right. In any case, you demonstrated my point: "obstructionists." You find a label that is appropriately demeaning for your purposes and write these people off. The problem for you is, it is not increasingly-obvious to many, many of us out there. In astrophysics, people take the exact same set of data and often come to different conclusions. When this happens in climate science, how do you decide whom to believe? Are both sides presented to the public? Also, nowhere in astrophysics, and I mean nowhere, do you get pronouncements of fact based on computer models. Isn't that what all the doom-and-gloom climate prognosticating is based on? Computer models? Models are not fact. They are predictions, which are heavily influenced by assumptions.
This is not Big Bang vs. Steady State, where nothing serious is (yet) at stake.
Then again, maybe there is something serious at stake, but most people haven't given it enough thought to be concerned. Big bang is philosophically unappealing to some people in science because of its theological implications. Who knows, maybe this is why Burbidge sticks to steady-state. But in a 1989 editorial, it was obvious that John Maddox, physics editor for Nature magazine and self-declared atheist, wanted desperately for big bang theory to go away. (Fodder for future debate!)
What we're telling them is that 50% certainty requires action, and even 10% likelihood justifies insurance. Instead they demand that nothing be done against their interests unless there is no possibility that they're wrong, and set an impossible standard of proof.
This is what people don't buy. Why does 50% certainty require action? Why does 10% require caution? Those numbers are completely arbitrary. Is 50% certainty where the term "very likely" in the report comes from? When I took statistics, 50% didn't equate to "very likely." For me to claim a result in my papers, I have to be at least 99% certain. Why don't similar standards apply to climate science?
But let's turn what you said around. You demand that something be done against the interests of a lot of people, even when there is a distinct possibility that you are wrong, and you set ridiculously low standards for yourselves.
Larry King recently interviewed four people on his show about global climate change, two on each side of the debate (such as it is). Most interesting was what the economist had to say about the economic impact of implementing the kinds of changes you're talking about. This is why people are "obstructionist" about implementing vast changes. From the transcript:
The way to get rid of them is to take the science seriously yourself, and make serious and direct (as opposed to tendentious and politically self-serving) policy based on it.
We are taking the science seriously. Hence, debate. So are you referring to scientists who conclude -- from actual data -- that climate change is natural, i.e. not driven by human activity? In any case, I think what you mean is that we're not taking you seriously. And I could not possibly describe junk policy like Kyoto any better than "tendentious and politically self-serving."
I meant to include this before. Here's the link to the Larry King transcript.
Y'all might want to read the first item in Taranto's Best of the Web for today (02/09/07) http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/. It is dead on point and nicely done.
Here is the money quote:
Above all, we can't stand to be bullied. And what is it but an act of bullying to deny that there is any room for honest disagreement, to insist that those of us who are unpersuaded are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers, that we are not merely mistaken but evil?
Actually, I liked the paragraph before that, too:
Our skepticism rests largely on intuition. The global-warmists speak with a certainty that is more reminiscent of religious zeal than scientific inquiry. Their demands to cast out all doubt seem antithetical to science, which is founded on doubt. The theory of global warming fits too conveniently with their pre-existing political ideologies. (Granted, we too are vulnerable to that last criticism.)
Which seems the point Sarah was making.
Excellent piece, DJ. Thanks.
I think the salient point here is that when it comes to science, having unfortuate bedfellows isn't really all that exculpatory.
Are their Chicken Littles out there saying ridiculous things?
Sure.
But the plain reality is that climatologists are largely able to defend their work from skeptics in convincing fashion. We ARE warming the planet with fossil fuel emissions. At this point, denying that is little different than denying gravity or atomic theory or evolution. The fact that some fringe characters take that science and run with it toward a bizzare agenda is irrelevant, really--the science is there, and apparently sound.
But the plain reality is also that the sun is getting warmer, too. The science is there, too, and apparently sound. So, there are two reasons why the earth is getting warmer.
What percentage of the warming is due to each cause? Beats me. I stated before that I haven't studied the matter (meaning I've largely ignored the shouting and such), but I don't recall seeing any analysis which purports to say.
I've ignored the shouting because I find it irritating that the AlGore's of the movement scream about the one cause and simply ignore the other, and as James Taranto noted, vilify those who don't do the same.
Here's an interesting thing to watch for in the future. Suppose, way down the pike, that the sun is found to be the minor player. How much of the "Chicken Little effect" will mute the world's response? Indeed, how much is it muting the world's response now?
What seems to be the dogma is that we (meaning American and other Westerners, mainly) must reduce carbon dioxide emissions with a significant reduction of living standards.
But there are other options, which are rarely explored. Adaptation, for example. Or massive use of nuclear power, for electricity but also heat source.
All options have pros and cons, but the discussions seems very lopsided.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>