Brad Allenby on "Nightmare Science"
April 5th, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Brad Allenby, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at of Arizona State Univeristy, where he holds an affiliation at CSPO, has a brilliant essay online at GreenBiz titled “Nightmare Science.” Every scientist should read it closely. Here is an excerpt:
We have, as scientists, established the validity of science through adoption of a process that institutionalizes observation, and thus grants us privileged access to truth, at least within the domains of physical reality. In doing so, we have destroyed authority as the source of privileged knowledge — and, concomitantly, assumed much of the power that used to reside in the old elite (e.g., the Church).
But now suppose that scientists become increasingly concerned with certain environmental phenomenon — say, loss of biodiversity, or climate change. They thus not only report the results of the practice of the scientific method, but, in part doubting the ability of the public to recognize the potential severity of the issues as scientists see them, become active as scientists in crafting and demanding particular responses, such as the Kyoto Treaty. These responses, notably, extend significantly beyond the purely environmental domain, into policies involving economic development, technology deployment, quality of life in many countries, and the like.
In short, the elite that has been created by practice of the scientific method uses the concomitant power not just to express the results of particular research initiatives, but to create, support, and implement policy responses affecting many non-scientific communities and intellectual domains in myriad ways. In doing so, they are not exercising expertise in these non-scientific domains, but rather transforming their privilege in the scientific domains into authority in non-scientific domains. Science is, in other words, segueing back into a structure where once again authority, not observation, is the basis of the exercise of power and establishment of truth by the elite. But the authority in this new model is not derived from sacred texts; rather it is derived from legitimate practice of scientific method in the scientific domain, extended into non-scientific domains. Note that this does not imply that scientists cannot, or should not, as individuals participate in public debate; only that if they do so cloaked in the privilege that the scientific discourse gives them they raise from the dead the specter of authority as truth.
Why is this nightmare science? Precisely because it raises an internal contradiction with which science cannot cope. In an age defined by the scientific worldview, which is the source of the primacy of the scientific discourse, science cannot demand privilege outside its domain based not on method, but on authority, for in doing so it undermines the zeitgeist that gives it validity. When demanding the Kyoto Treaty as scientists, it is themselves, not their opponents, that they attack.
Read the whole thing, several times.
April 5th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Roger,
If I argue that the rise of greenhouse gas concentrations has created an imbalance in the fluxes of solar and infrared radiation at the top of the atmosphere, am I invoking “observation as truth” or am I “raising the specter of authority as truth”?
If I argue that the climate is responding to that imbalance, am I invoking “observation as truth” or am I “raising the specter of authority as truth”?
If I argue that taking action to reduce emissions is one viable way of addressing the imbalance of radiative fluxes, am I invoking “observation as truth” or am I “raising the specter of authority as truth”?
I’ll agree that science is only one of several relevant points of view in formulating climate change policy, which I assume is the practical message buried in “…science is no more than another normative discourse, of no greater ontological value than any other.” But that does not mean that arguments based on observation have no value. So why can’t a climate scientist participate in the public debate “cloaked in the privilege that the scientific discourse gives” – along side some economists cloaked in the privilege of economic discourse, and some politicians cloaked in the privilege of elected office, and some newspaper columnists cloaked in the privilege of a widely-circulated newspaper, and some energy industry representatives cloaked in the privilege of being the ones who have to buy and sell carbon credits?
Finally, will “raising the specter of authority as truth” in discussions of climate change, like Marxism, lead to despotism?
Thanks for directing us to this interesting commentary.
April 5th, 2006 at 10:29 am
“Read the whole thing, several times.”
Indeed. It’s stunningly well written. However, the true situation is actually far worse than Brad Allenby describes.
The fact is that the “projections” in the IPCC TAR are fraudulent. The “business as usual” warming of “1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius” should be much more like warming of “0 to 2.5 degrees Celsius.”
So the IPCC (and its supporters…present company take caution!) is not only saying, “Trust us;” they are saying, “Trust us,” as they tell a blatant lie.
My prediction is that most, if not all (if not more-than-all) of the good will the public properly accorded to the environmental science community regarding the dangers of CFCs, will be lost in this global warming debacle.
A large portion of the public will subsequently consider “environmental science” to be an oxymoron.
April 5th, 2006 at 11:53 am
Eric wrote:
“So why can’t a climate scientist participate in the public debate “cloaked in the privilege that the scientific discourse gives” – along side some economists cloaked in the privilege of economic discourse, and some politicians cloaked in the privilege of elected office, and some newspaper columnists cloaked in the privilege of a widely-circulated newspaper, and some energy industry representatives cloaked in the privilege of being the ones who have to buy and sell carbon credits?”
Independent of the question Eric asks, the point should be made that these are different privileges. While each of the people Eric describes would be affected by the policy, only two of them rely on their methods for their special standing in the policy debate. Arguably the privilege of both the climate scientist and the economist is based on their observations and models and the information they generate. The scientific method gives validity to their observations independent of . The columnist (distinct from the reporter, who has a similar dilemma to the scientists concerning their methods and how the results of those methods are used) has a megaphone compared to the average citizen (Chris Mooney has recently blogged about the different standards for columnists vis a vis reporters and the problems it poses – http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2006/04/science_opinion_writing_and_jo.php). The energy industry representatives perhaps have the clearest set of concerns, as it’s hard to argue they don’t have a vested interest in the policy debate.
Allenby argues that scientists (and while he doesn’t say it, I think by extension economists) do themselves a disservice by advocating particular policy options in a way that suggests that their being a scientist or an economist makes their policy options the “right” choice. An implication of this approach is that the experts are the ones qualified to make policy decisions. Another implication (the one I think Allenby is addressing) is that by relying on scientific status as sufficient authority to make decisions, you undercut the independence of the methods science relies on for its independence from authority.
April 5th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Roger
The longer I ponder Allenby’s essay, the clearer one thought comes to mind: that any *political* challenge of elected authorities by scientific elites (say over Kyoto) will inevitably be regarded as, well, a political challenge.
Thus, another nightmare science activists face is that governments might start dealing with them like they deal with any other political opponents when administrations change hands.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060401.CHALLENGE01/TPStory/National
April 5th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Roger:
Bahner uses scare quotes several times in his missive above. It’s a very common tool.
++++++++++
As to the Allenby, the thesis of the essay (once you slog past the Marxism code phrases) is:
“the reality is that the postmodernist critique is right, and [environmental] science is no more than another normative discourse, of no greater ontological value than any other.”
Well. We’ve marginalized enviros and scientists in general in one fell swoop.
And, further, another false premise is used to forward the argument:
We have, as scientists, established the validity of science through adoption of a process that institutionalizes observation, and thus grants us privileged access to truth, at least within the domains of physical reality. In doing so, we have destroyed authority as the source of privileged knowledge — and, concomitantly, assumed much of the power that used to reside in the old elite (e.g., the Church).
Invoking the black robes and religion again – causing emotional reactions to subsume rationalism.
This is cr*p. This is what passes for brilliant these days? Certainly it evokes scary images very well, but the tactics are obvious. Just because he hides the tactics with some real purty words don’t change nothin’.
You are starting to scare me, Roger. I hope you don’t talk this way amongst your students.
Best,
D
April 5th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
David,
You write: “Another implication (the one I think Allenby is addressing) is that by relying on scientific status as sufficient authority to make decisions, you undercut the independence of the methods science relies on for its independence from authority.”
Presumably, the scientist contributing to the policy debate would be relying on their knowledge as a scientist, rather than their status as a scientist. Please be specific as to how this would “undercut the independence of the methods science relies on”. I don’t think this is so obviously true. Also, let’s not forget that it’s the politicians who make the decisions (and it was their representatives that wrote the Kyoto Protocol). Not scientists (or economists, or newspaper columnists, or energy industry reps).
You also write: “Allenby argues that scientists (and while he doesn’t say it, I think by extension economists) do themselves a disservice by advocating particular policy options in a way that suggests that their being a scientist or an economist makes their policy options the “right” choice.”
What if one could make a scientific argument that one policy option were more effective at avoiding dangerous climate change than another policy option? Would they do themselves a disservice to say so?
Earlier you noted that each of the people I mentioned have different “privileges” (are we even using this word correctly anymore?). I don’t see that it matters. If each has something useful to contribute to the policy debate, then why should any hold back? Bearing in mind, again, it’s the politicians who are making the decisions.
April 5th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Once again, those who use their scientific credentials to oppose taking action on environmental proplems are completly ignored. Why is this group given a free ride?
April 5th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
How brilliant would you find this variation on Allenby’s polemic? “… But now suppose that scientists become increasingly concerned with a certain environmental phenomenon — say, the risk of earth impact of an asteroid. They not only report the results of the practice of the scientific method, but, in part doubting the ability of the public to recognize the potential severity of the issue as scientists see it, become active as scientists in crafting …” [and on I go for a while in fine language]
In his original Allenby continues ” … and demanding particular responses, such as the Kyoto Treaty … etc etc” where he diverges from history and observable reality because, as everybody knows, scientists speak to the climate change issue through the IPCC which was established at the behest – and exists only at the pleasure – of governments, not scientists.
The logic fails immediately but he continues “… These responses, notably, extend significantly beyond the purely environmental domain, into policies involving economic development, technology deployment, quality of life in many countries, and the like”. The priesthood of nerdy scientists towering above the realm of the merely political, economic, punditocratic? – reality is better described by far in Eric’s “brilliant” comment, above. Finely wielded words do not alone a convincing scientific argument make.
April 5th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
That was Eric’s first comment I was referring to but I like his second one as well.
April 5th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
A very clear essay. Unfortunately, the subjects are not likely to understand it. The problem is that people who are able to keep things in perspective – as in benefit/cost ratio, uncertainties, etc. are viewed by those not able to as “the other side.”
Getting to the source of the problem, we have some who are educated beyond their intelligence, leaving behind common sense. To them, their research is what matters (also a problem with ownership) and everything else is a constant.
It’s the classic case of learning more and more about less and less.
So, we have people keeping perspective vs. the Chicken Littles. It’s easy to recognize the Chicken Littles. They’re the ones who think their answer is the only thing that matters and they “need” to convince everyone of that (shades of Schneider), so they resort to insults instead of reality when they perceive illustration of concepts they don’t comprehend as a personal attack.
April 5th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
Roger-
This editorial seems quite reasonable. I would paraphrase the main point as: scientists have special knowledge of the positive questions of the climate change debate and therefore deserve some deference in this area; however, they have no special insight and deserve no deference in the normative (values) debate. This I think mirrors the argument in my book.
I’m interested in how this fits with your “honest broker of policy option” argument. As I understand it, you argue that scientists should become involved in the policy debate by providing options for addressing AGW. But according to this editorial, with which we both agree, why do scientists have any special insight into policy options?
Regards.
April 6th, 2006 at 1:08 am
“When demanding the Kyoto Treaty as scientists, it is themselves, not their opponents, that they attack.”
Andrew, do you agree with this conclusion? My impression is that it was the politicians who presented scientists with the Kyoto process as the only way forward at the international level. In general, if a given set of values manifests itself in a policy proposal for ineffective action on global warming and another manifests itself in favor of an effective policy, isn’t there some degree of scientific judgement involved in making the determination of effectiveness of each, and why shouldn’t scientists then advocate for the one they deem more effective?
April 6th, 2006 at 3:04 am
We have now reached the point that when scientists cry “wolf” again, the public isn’t bothered.
April 6th, 2006 at 5:57 am
Perspective, Steve B, perspective. There is more to the world’s changes than CO2 increase. There are real pollution, land use changes, population needs, the effects on flora of increased CO2, etc. Modelers run a very simplified … approximation of reality. In fact, so far it’s so simple as to be irrelevant. It’s the Tower of Babel concept.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:34 am
All- Thanks for these thoughtful comments, lets to respond to.
1. Eric- David Bruggeman’s last paragraph is an excellent response to your comment. I agree. There is a big difference between a scientist making a “positive claim” and a “normative claim” as Andrew Dessler notes in his book. Some of the implications of this distinction are discussed in this paper:
Pielke, Jr., R.A., 2004. When scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist, Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 7, pp. 405-417.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1621-2004.18.pdf
2. John Frankis- Good questions. You are seeking to dedfine the issue of climate change as an instance of what I have called “Tornado Politics” which implies as certain, privledged role for the sceintist in decision making. But I don’t think that the analogy holds. The climate debate also has very important elements of what I call “Abortion Politics,” which suggests other forms of deicsion making — which subsumes scientific considerations to other factors like values and process. Have a look at this essay for a discussion:
Pielke, Jr., R.A., 2004. Forests, Tornadoes, and Abortion: Thinking about Science, Politics and Policy, Chapter 9 in J. Bowersox and K. Arabas (eds.) Forest Futures: Science, Policy and Politics for the Next Century (Rowman and Littlefield), pp. 143-152.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-484-2004.20.pdf
3. Andrew- Thanks. I’d agree with your comment as related to your book. By “scientists” I assume you are referring to WGI-type people, who’d I’d agree typically do not have any special expertise in policy research. However, most policy researchers typically have no special expertise in climate processes. Both (and other) sorts of expertise are needed in order to develop a range of policy options on climate. The challenge of developing policy options is a multi-disciplinary, pragmatically-focused challenge. Assessments are a good venue for taking on such a challenge because they have the convening power to bring together the needed diversity of expertise.
Instead of advocating a single course of action and drawing on expertise as authority, by presenting a wide range of options, scientists would more clearly delineate a distinction between advice and responsibility for decision making.
If I’ve overlooked or not responded to a point that a commenter wants a response to just ask again, and I’ll do my best. Thanks!
April 6th, 2006 at 7:06 am
I need to correct a statement of mine. I said:
“Modelers run a very simplified … approximation of reality. In fact, so far it’s so simple as to be irrelevant. It’s the Tower of Babel concept.”
It’s not irrelevant. However, it’s a long way from the big picture.
April 6th, 2006 at 8:38 am
Andrew and Roger,
Forgive me for not being totally up to speed on the distinction between positive and normative, but I appreciate what both of you are saying. Allow me a few more specific questions:
1) Does anyone have have special knowledge in the normative debate over climate change policy, and thereby deserve some deference in this area? If so, would they be “raising the specter of authority” in their own discipline?
2) Repeated from above: if a scientist could mount a scientific argument that one policy option may be more effective at avoiding dangerous climate change than others, would it be inappropriate to make that argument while “cloaked in the privilege that the scientific discourse gives”?
3) Related to the overall premise of the commentary: To what extent are scientists truly advocating that the Kyoto Protocol is the only policy option? I hear lots of climate scientists warning that time may be running out to avoid dangerous climate change, and therefore we ought to be pursuing climate policies more aggressively. But I don’t hear a lot of advocacy specifically for the Kyoto Protocol. Am I not listening hard enough?
Thanks!
April 6th, 2006 at 9:46 am
Eric, I’ll try and address what I think is the main concern of your comments, and found in this quote:
“2) Repeated from above: if a scientist could mount a scientific argument that one policy option may be more effective at avoiding dangerous climate change than others, would it be inappropriate to make that argument while “cloaked in the privilege that the scientific discourse gives”?”
A scientist can legitimately make the scientific claim that a policy option may be more effective at avoiding dangerous climate change. But that’s different from saying that the science says we should choose this particular policy option. Scientific knowledge can inform policy choices, but the people (through their representatives) make policy choices, not science. Scientists can advocate policy choices, and their work can inform their choices. But to argue that their work or their position dictates a particular policy option is an overextension of science into a realm in which it does not have a privileged position.
April 6th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Eric, I think the piece of information you’re missing is the distinction between the short-term treaty expiring in 2010 (this is the one the U.S. refused to opt in on) and the longer-term process (that the U.S. is still technically in on) that should result in another treaty, and probably a sequence of several, to ultimately solve the problem. So, one can be very aware of the limitations of the short-term agreement but still believe that the process is the only way out of this mess. The only real alternative to Kyoto I’m aware of is the R+D deal recently inked by the US, India, China and a couple others, but I don’t recall there being a rush of scientists to support that as a legitimate alternative to Kyoto.
April 6th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Whew, After reading the basic material, and all of the comments, it is nice to be assured by Steve that the government will solve the problem.
Like it has solved the problem of drugs, the problem of poverty, the problems of education…
Wait, he said many governments acting together…
What amazes me is that you all are still beleivers in the supremacy of man.
April 6th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Eric- I’ll take a shot at your follow-up questions, thanks.
You ask “1) Does anyone have have special knowledge in the normative debate over climate change policy, and thereby deserve some deference in this area? If so, would they be “raising the specter of authority” in their own discipline?”
The first point, and this is Andrew Dessler’s point, is that you can’t get an ought from an is. Oughts (normative statements” are a function of values. Are there people with expertise in normative questions? Of course — philosophers, rabbis, priests have special claims to such expertise, but at the same time you and I and everyone else has views on normative issues. The point Allenby is making is about the implications of the assertion that you can get an ought from an is.
2. You ask, “2) Repeated from above: if a scientist could mount a scientific argument that one policy option may be more effective at avoiding dangerous climate change than others, would it be inappropriate to make that argument while “cloaked in the privilege that the scientific discourse gives”?”
I agree with David. Whether or not “avoiding dangerous climate change” is an appropriate goal or the various means to achieve that goal are desired are issues that cannot be answered by science.
3. You ask, “3) Related to the overall premise of the commentary: To what extent are scientists truly advocating that the Kyoto Protocol is the only policy option? I hear lots of climate scientists warning that time may be running out to avoid dangerous climate change, and therefore we ought to be pursuing climate policies more aggressively. But I don’t hear a lot of advocacy specifically for the Kyoto Protocol. Am I not listening hard enough?”
There are a few answers to this. One is that when a scientists says we should do something, without specifying what it is shoul be done, a common interpretation by many (even if inaccurate) is to assume support for the option on the table, which is primarily Kyoto. The Bush Administration would argue that they are “doing something” but I doubt that this is what most scientists have in mind when making statements of advocacy.
More generally, the IPCC has in important respects organized itself around Kyoto and the FCCC. This raises a question about where policy alternatives might come from, given that they will be needed in the post-Kyoto era. DO have a look at my paper titled “Misdefining Climate Change.”
Thanks!
April 6th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Perish the thought that a Nobel laureate in physics like Einstein might somehow “leverage” his scientific stature to influence policy for which science is only one part.
I think most are familiar with the letter that Einstein sent to President Roosevelt and the influence that had on setting in motion the Manhattan Project, the outcome of which ultimately brought an end to WWII.
Having such a brilliant and consciencious scientist significantly influencing policy that was only tangentially related to his scientific area of expertise is CLEARLY an absolute nightmare.
April 6th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Laurence- Thanks for your comment. The Einstein letter is indeed worth bringing up, here is what Einstein recommended:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/truman/psources/ps_einstein.html
“In view of this situation you may think it desirable to have some permanent contact maintained between the Administration and the group of physicists working on chain reactions in America. One possible way of achieving this might be for you to entrust with this task a person who has your confidence and who could perhaps serve in an unofficial capacity. His task might comprise the following:
a) To approach Government Departments, keep them informed of the further development, and out forward recommendations for Government action, giving particular attention to the problem of uranium ore for the United States;
b) To speed up the experimental work, which is at present being carried on within the limits of the budgets of University laboratories, by providing funds, if such funds be required, through his contacts with private persons who are willing to make a contribution for this cause, and perhaps also by obtaining the co-operation of industrial laboratories which have the necessary equipment.”
This would be sort of like a scientist calling for more research on climate change and recommending that such research results be shared with decision makers.
Einstein did not make any recommendations about the war, the use of the bomb, and certainly did not say that science dictated any of those actions.
Thanks!
April 6th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
“Einstein did not make any recommendations about the war, the use of the bomb, and certainly did not say that science dictated any of those actions.”
Perhaps not explicitly, but Eistein’s REASON for sending the letter is KEY: he and other physicists who understood the awesome potential of nuclear chain reactions feared that germany might obtain such weapons FIRST America and if they did, that there could be disastrous repercussions.
The warning to Roosevelt conveyed in the letter was FAR more important from a policy standpoint than the few recommedations that Einstein made.
“This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable — though much less certain — that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. However, such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by air.” — AE
Einstein was attampting to convey to Roosevelt the magnitude of the threat. Einstein knew that what Roosevelt did with the warning was up to Roosevelt and he did not say “franklin, you have to make anuclear bomb to beat germany to the punch. he did not HAVE to and this would not have been in keeping with the man’s personality, at any rate.
Eistein was no dummy. He had a VERY good idea what Roosevelt would do with his suggestion. Had he thought otherwise, there would have been no reason for sending ther letter in the first place.
April 6th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Laurence- I agree with you 100%. Nonetheless, Einstein did not say anything like “the science demonstrates a need to act.” Einstein, and the very politically active nuclear scientists who followed him, were very clear about the normative aspects of their advocacy. This is quite different than what Allenby is discussing — he says “Note that this does not imply that scientists cannot, or should not, as individuals participate in public debate; only that if they do so cloaked in the privilege that the scientific discourse gives them they raise from the dead the specter of authority as truth.”
It is one thing to draw on one’s fame or stature as a scientist to gain access to policy makers to enageg in advocacy, it is quite another thing altogether to suggest that such advocacy is either compelled by science or free of political considerations.
Thanks!
April 6th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Roger Pielke said: “It is one thing to draw on one’s fame or stature as a scientist to gain access to policy makers to enageg in advocacy, it is quite another thing altogether to suggest that such advocacy is either compelled by science or free of political considerations.”
I agree, but from what he wrote, it seems (to me, at least) that Allenby is suggesting something that is significantly MORE far-reaching:
“they [scientists] are not exercising expertise in these non-scientific domains, but rather transforming their privilege in the scientific domains into authority in non-scientific domains.”
In sending the letter, what was Einstein doing if not “transforming his privilege in the scientific domain (E=Mc2) into authority in non-scientific domains (war policy)”
At the time, most people undoubtedly thought that Einstein knew more physics than everyone except God. If Einstein said, “it MIGHT BE possible to build a nuclear bomb”, everyone else (Roosevelt in particular) took that as “it is possible, so we had better do something about it”. Einstein understood this.
Finally, though Einstein sent the letter as an individual scientist, he was NOT acting alone. Far from it. He was acting on behalf of many within the physics community at the time. (Leo Szilard, another Physicist actually convinced him to send the letter).
April 6th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Allenby is distinguishing between those who claim a privileged position in argument because they are scientists and those whose knowledge in a particular area allows them to make informed contributions to a debate. The contribution of the latter should be privileged with respect to what the underlying facts are, though not necessarily so with respect to final choices. However, as pointed out above, sometimes the facts drive a particular choice.
Those claiming privilege only because they are scientists (or engineers) present a great risk to the contribution that the experts can make because it is difficult for the public to distingish the two.
An excellent example for those arguing that just because scientists have a certain position, that position is correct would be the proponents of the 17000 “scientists” (scare quotes) can’t be wrong OISM petition. An excellent example of an argument from authority based on relevant expertise would be the IPCC TAR.
April 6th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
“When demanding the Kyoto Treaty as scientists, it is themselves, not their opponents, that they attack” concludes Allenby. “Demanding”? _Which_ scientists are “demanding the Kyoto Treaty”? I personally can think of none who’d picture it as better than a pig’s ear, at best a gesture of good faith by its signatories.
What produced Kyoto was a political process. The treaty is accordingly a compromise between various vested and powerful political interests somewhat influenced or shamed into it by an at least scientifically founded argument made by a committee, the IPCC. No scientist would “demand” a treaty like Kyoto; those with an opinion on it see it as a typical result of a politicized – not scientific – process, and therefore not defensible or “demandable” on purely scientific grounds.
Engineers may be different but real scientists want the truth to come out. Where this truth has implications in the policy realm the scientist wants the policy to be more likely to succeed in addressing the more important of the concerns raised by the science, all as effectively as possible. And any scientist worth the name will concede that “effective” in this context must imply that the policy be politically and economically well-founded.
Allenby’s opinion comes down to him not believing that anthropogenic climate change poses as much of a threat to his own lifestyle and personal values as might, say, an asteroid strike.
April 7th, 2006 at 8:10 am
“Allenby’s opinion comes down to him not believing that anthropogenic climate change poses as much of a threat to his own lifestyle and personal values as might, say, an asteroid strike.”
Reality check: The lifetime oddds of dying from an asteroid impact are in the region of 1-in-200,000 and 1-in-500,000.
http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050106_odds_of_dying.html
Why should anyone believe that anthropogenic climate change poses as much of a threat to our lifestyle and personal values as an asteroid strike?
April 7th, 2006 at 11:33 am
Benny, what are the long-term implications of the loss of the Tibetan glaciers (i.e., the loss of a reliable year-round water supply for something like a billion people, most of them residing in countries with nuclear weapons)?
April 7th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Steve, Ben doesn’t live in Tibet, therefore since he can’t see it, he “believes” (scare quotes) it won’t pose much of a threat to his lifestyle.
Best,
D
April 7th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Benny it depends on what you value in life, on the way you appreciate among the things of this world. The odds of my being done in by asteroid strike are very low (and virtually guesswork). The odds though of the world losing its most beautiful coral reefs during my lifetime are much higher (and depend upon less speculation) – that loss would (probably _will_) cause me great pain. We’re likely to lose them because large, complex, beautiful reefs take many decades to hundreds of years to evolve, meaning that waters warming relatively rapidly on timescales of years to decades would (probably will) kill existing reefs far faster than new ones could form in those otherwise suitable parts of our oceans that are presently to cool for them.
If you don’t share my interest in coral reefs bear in mind that this is just one example of what rapid climate change threatens to destroy of our lovely blue planet. If a hypothetical engineer somewhere is confident she’ll still be able to commute from her air conditioned home compound to her airconditioned office in her SUV while I’m mourning the loss of various complex ecosystems and the remorseless rise of an age of weeds – then her values are different to mine.
April 7th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Oh – please ’scuse typos!
April 7th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
John Frankis posted about the beauty of our planet. Here is a link to some wonderful blue marbles http://tinyurl.com/km25r
April 8th, 2006 at 4:11 am
* “What are the long-term implications of the loss of the Tibetan glaciers?”
That depends on how you define long-term. The probability of such a loss in the next couple of centuries is essentially zero – by which time humankind will, most likely, have advanced into hyper-complex environmental engineering.
This is one of the reasons why China’s main priority is to secure the economic welfare of its huge and growing population rather than to worry what might happen to its glaciers in 500 years time. Remember that by 2015, something in the order of five to eight hundred million people will be broadly classed as middle class in China and India alone! No wonder, then, that China is building a new coal-fired power station every month to meet its soaring energy needs.
* “The odds though of the world losing its most beautiful coral reefs during my lifetime are much higher.”
True. But don’t forget that approximately half of the coral reefs that were destroyed as a result of the 1997-98 El Niño/La Niña climate shifts have already recovered. Coral reefs have shown to be much more resilient and are able to recover much faster than previously thought.
So, we’ve covered big asteroid strikes, the loss of the Tibetan glaciers and the destruction of the world’s coral reefs. None of these worst-case scenarios concocted by green campaigners exhibt any significant probability in the next 100 years or so. As long as this is the case, healthy scepticism about these and similar prophecies of doom remains more than justified.
April 8th, 2006 at 8:05 am
I seem alone in not being impressed by the article. Why?
1. The authority of scientists within science largely dissolves upon examination. It relies upon the notion of bench science (or computer models), that is, closed systems. But we live in open systems where science is shot through with economics, politics, metaphysics, etc. This isn’t social contructivism–scientists know things–but there seldom a charmed circle within which they ‘have authhority.’
2. Conversely, while they have something less than full authority in the scientific realm, they have something more than john q citizen to add in the political realm. They have a special (not decisive) voice. So do others that by dint of training or experience have extraordinary knowledge on the subject. The trick is figuring out how far that knowledge instructs us in a given case. I do not believe that there are rules for answering this question.
April 8th, 2006 at 8:21 am
Peiser would do well to read about the fall of the Roman empire and the dark ages which follow. To the contrary of those who believe that progress is certain, it is not.
April 8th, 2006 at 9:23 am
Roger Frodeman said: “I seem alone in not being impressed by the article.”
Nearly. If you read my posts above, you will see that I too was not impressed.
There are clearly cases that disprove Allenby’s blanket statement — in other words, that show that it COULD actually be advantageous for scientists to leverage their authority in the scientifc realm to effect a result outside that realm. All it takes is just one such case to disprove Allenby’s thesis.
It is far from obvious that there is some inherent “threat” posed by scientists using their scientific authority on matters that may only be tangentially related to science (SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT USE IT WITHIN SCIENCE ITSELF).
In some cases, scientists as a group may possess a KEY insight (on an issue that is not purely scientific) that non-scientists simply lack. IN some cases, such insight may may be extremely relevant to the case at hand.
This WAS the case of Einstein**, Szilard and other physicists with regard to the possible building of an atomic bomb (see my postings above). They understood what few (if any others) did: that such a bomb might be extraordinarily powerful and that if german got it before America, it could be a REAL NIGHTMARE.
**Notwithstanding the argument that the Einstein case somehow falls under Allenby’s escape clause: “this does not imply that scientists cannot, or should not, as individuals participate in public debate”. I am sorry to say that it DOES not fall into this category, since Eistein actually wrote the letter at the behest of others within the physics community (eg, Szilard). In others words, Einstein was NOT acting as an individual in this case.
Clearly, science itself CAN NOT operate based on authority — or it is not really science.
But Allenby’s extension of this principle outside the realm of science is unwarranted. It is not a self-evident truth that “transforming their privilege in the scientific domains into authority in non-scientific domains” is always a nightmare scenario. In some cases, it might be true and in others not. The case of Einstien and the other physicists who attempted to alert Roosevelt is the proof of this (though I could name LOTS of other cases which would not fit here).
What Allenby claims is quite different from the claim that “Authority is anathema to science itself” which, of course, IS TRUE. The “science” of Aristotle, which set back real science by nearly 2000 years, uis perhaps the best example of this.
The return to a time when authority dictated what people could and should believe about the natural world (ie, about science itself) WOULD be a nightmare but again, this is not what Allenby is talking about.
April 8th, 2006 at 11:18 am
First, alarm is raised about the menace posed by asteroids; then it’s the loss of Tibetan glaciers and the destruction of the world’s coral reefs; now it’s the Roman Empire. Ah, the “fall” of the Roman Empire, the much-loved bogeyman of cultural pessimists and social scare-mongers. http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/003933.html
Let’s face it: The temporary disintegration of the ancient Roman state and its eventual replacement by the technologically far superior civilisation of the Renaissance (and the scientific and industrial revolutions that followed suit) is a good example of the key trajectory of the evolution of social complexity.
Nobody in their right mind would is so naïve today to argue that social and technological progress is inevitable. After all, there have been hundreds of historical cases of societal decline and breakdown. However, the collapse of agrarian societies is a characteristic feature of pre-industrial, strongly hierarchical societies that lacked free markets and free people. In any case, such temporary breakdowns have never been unmitigated or total. Most unsuccessful agrarian societies recovered after a period of marked decline and regularly emerged more robust and dynamic.
The general trend of cultural evolution during the last 10,000 years has not been intermittent breakdown of societies but relentless technological progress, increased social complexity and spectacularly improved forms of technology-driven protection against the forces of nature. http://www.policynetwork.net/uploaded/pdf/peiser_ch_10.pdf
Given the empirical evidence of accelerating technological progress (what Ray Kurzweil has called “the law of accelerating returns” -
http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1), today’s, interconnected global civilisation has reached a level of complexity that renders the probability of human survival for the next 1,000 years drastically higher than at any previous stage of our long history. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1604714.stm
April 8th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Actually Szilard wrote the letters and Einstein later regretted signing them, but that’s beside the point. Einstein, later in his life, flatly refused to run for political office. I can’t find the quote right now, but it was something to the effect that “I know only a little about physics and absolutely nothing about humanity”
Quite a different attitude from the world of modelers, wherein model outputs are referred to as “data” and there is such a narrow focus as to not understand the difference between “The scientific study of matter in outer space, especially the positions, dimensions, distribution, motion, composition, energy, and evolution of celestial bodies and phenomena.” and astrology (whatever that is), and it’s okay to bury uncertainty.
More evidence that the frantic squealings of some of the modeling community about the sky falling should be questioned.
The penalty for failure could be immense. The removal of food for plants and subsequently up the food chain could create severe anarchy. The solution is to get control of population growth, and that’s not going to happen until sentience of Homo sapiens as a species. Blaming progress for the world’s woes could throw us into another dark age. Benny’s right, we’ll come out ahead in the end. The question is how much pain will there be in the meantime.
April 8th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Steve Hemphill wrote:
“Actually Szilard wrote the letters and Einstein later regretted signing them, but that’s beside the point.Einstein, later in his life, flatly refused to run for political office. I can’t find the quote right now, but it was something to the effect that “I know only a little about physics and absolutely nothing about humanity”
You are quite correct.
Einstein actually later called the letter to Roosevelt the “biggest mistake he had ever made”, undoubtedly because the bomb was not just produced (something he had certainly envisioned when he sent the letter), but actually used (which he apparently had not envisioned).
But Einstein’s second thoughts do not detract from my argument challenging the validity of Allenby’s thesis.
Many of those charged with making the decision to drop the bomb would not have shared Einstein’s second thoughts about the correctness of his action, since dropping the bomb brought an immediate end to what might otherwise have required an extremely bloody invasion of Japan in which millions on both sides might have died.
April 8th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Laurence wrote:
“But Einstein’s second thoughts do not detract from my argument challenging the validity of Allenby’s thesis.”
First, Germany wasn’t close to the bomb as Szilard feared. Second, even if they were, it’s doubtful they would have been close enough to use it before the end of the war in Europe. Third, no one at the time envisioned using it against a Japanese people who would have been so entrenched that, as you say, millons would have died if we’d have had to invade.
Not that I’m against the bomb and the technology it’s brought about whatsoever (another unknown at the time). Those scientific achievements have been extremely valuable.
But, your argument against the validity of Allenby’s thesis is based purely on coincidence.
April 8th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Benny, there were about 800 years between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance, and even then it took about another century before Western Europe reached a standard of living comparable to that at the peak of the Roman empire. That’s a lot of miserable years.
April 8th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Steve Hemphill wrote: “But, your argument against the validity of Allenby’s thesis is based purely on coincidence.”
This is simply a misunderstanding of my argument.
My argument depends ONLY on the fact that Einstein’s action (sending the letter to Roosevelt) had value — and it did.
It was valuable regardless of whether the bomb was used or not.
The value was to leverage his considerable scientific stature to convince Rooselvelt to act in order that America might protect itself against a distict potentiality: that germany might get the bomb.
To argue otherwise — that it had no value (or, th opposite, that it was counterproductive, or worse still, “a nightmare”) would really be to debate the wisdom of America’s having undetaken the Manhattan Project, given the threat posed at the time.
I don’t know of ANYONE who would debate the wisdom of our having done so under the circumstances.
Aty the time, America and its allies certainly had no way of knowing for certain whether Germany would pursue its own atom bomb development project. They HAD little choice but to assume the worst — that Germany would. The Allies did not discover until very late in the war that Germany had no significant effort of its own.
My argument depends neither on the fact that we dropped the bomb on the Japanese nor on the use of the bomb AT ALL (even as a “demonstration of power”, for example, which some had called for.)
April 8th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Laurence -
Your arguments are true. I’m not arguing against the fact it was a good idea – I completely agree it was a *good* idea. All I’m saying is that it’s sheer coincidence that it was, and the fact is that the reasoning behind the decision had nothing to do with the reality of the situation (as Monday morning quarterbacks…)
Sometimes a decision made purely on myopic science, like current climate change understanding, will be good, and sometimes it won’t be. As far as the modelers are from reality, and considering the effect of what may be considered carbon rescued from the depths on the biosphere, we’re not in any position to be making policy decisions based on what we know.
Speaking of the Manhattan Project, it’s been my solidified position for years that we need to ramp up our research in the area of anthropogenic climate influence with another “Manhattan Project” type program – we just don’t know enough right now.
April 8th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Steve Hemphill wrote: “All I’m saying is that it’s sheer coincidence that it was, and the fact is that the reasoning behind the decision had nothing to do with the reality of the situation (as Monday morning quarterbacks…)”
I understand quite clearly what you are saying, but I am afraid that I simply DO NOT agree with this statement. Coincidence and monday Morning quarterbacking are irrelevant to the argument I was making.
As I stated above, the Manhattan Project WAS a good idea regardless of whether the bomb was used or not: as a hedge against the possibility that germany might develop a bomb of its own — and this is ALL that matters to the argument I was making.
April 8th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
It’s substance-free posting from the shorter Benny: “What, me worry about death of ecosystems or the coming of an age of weeds?! … too busy panicking about the price of coal!”, and I apologize beforehand for the irritated mood it has me in.
Benny doesn’t read comments with any better comprehension than he demonstrated last year when he was busy utterly mischaracterising 34 scientific papers: http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/
Benny claimed then that they meant something that suited his prejudices, whereas anyone else who looks at them can see they say nothing of the sort. Benny doesn’t do apologies for total stuff-ups like that, though, leaving me not at all sure what sort of thing he might value in his reputation.
In his latest comments above Benny “covers” [his word] near to nothing, just daydreams out loud again. He fails perseveratively for instance to understand the point of the reference to asteroid strikes, just as he failed recently to get anywhere close to the point of a thought experiment on coal’s importance to the energy economy. I’m not going to explain either one again for him.
Now though his own reference to well accepted observations that overheated coral reefs can recover if the temperature stress is relieved in time, as for instance with a brief-enough ENSO event, is in fact good evidence _against_ his misconception that reefs can survive a sustained warming of their waters. The observations show that reefs may recover if the warming is removed, Benny. By the same evidence we stand to lose coral reefs for as long as oceans may continue to warm too fast for them to adapt, and for the hundreds of years after water temperatures may have ceased rising that it would take for new coral reefs to develop. It was only one example of the risk which climate change poses to the ecosphere and you misunderstood it – surprise!
Benny is a wide-eyed fantasist on climate change despite journals of scientific evidence proving that it takes hard and sustained effort to mitigate our bad effects on such things as an ozone hole, on air and water quality, to conserve forests or endangered species, and of course the list goes on. It’s partly due to the fact that Benny’s values differ (although he fantasizes that it’s really down to his deeper insight) that he swings from sounding like Pollyanna on stuff, like our environment, that he has no personal emotional investment in, to squawking chicken little if “the economy!” is mentioned. Don’t touch Benny’s coal – the sky would fall.
I’m afraid you’re in reality no skeptic Benny, because you’ll swallow whole anything no matter how foolish just as long as it suits your ideological prejudices and comes from someone – say one of your fellow would-be bigtime letter-signers like McKitrick, Essex or Baliunas – whom you perceive as being an even greater authority, and shall we say “even more numerate”, in the skeptic game than your esteemed self. But it’s not skepticism to fall into line and salute nonsense because it’s been spouted by someone you believe is an authoritative “skeptic”, it’s just garden variety deference to authority. Look at the deceitful bumf you signed your name to just the other day – “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary”. That statement’s probably closer to a lie than merely intentionally misdirecting; you deserve the company you keep with it.
Enough of Benny’s fantasies but apologies to all – including you Benny, you dope – for my bad mood.
April 8th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
Update: Benny and 16 co-signatories on his recent important missive to the Canada Post (or something) have been through the mill at Tim Lambert’s site “typically for making serious errors of fact and interpretation” says Tim. Couldn’t agree more.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/04/climate_change_is_real.php#more
April 9th, 2006 at 2:26 am
“What, me worry about death of ecosystems or the coming of an age of weeds?!”
John
I can understand your foul mood and frustration that doomsday-sceptics don’t swallow the horror scenarios dreamt up by green apocalyptics. If you really want to convince me that I should start worrying about “the coming age of weeds” you better provide some hard facts instead of innuendo.
April 9th, 2006 at 8:33 am
“The longer I ponder … *political* challenge of elected authorities … scientific elites (say over Kyoto) … nightmare science activists …Reality check: The lifetime oddds of dying from an asteroid impact … we’ve covered big asteroid strikes, the loss of the Tibetan glaciers and the destruction of the world’s coral reefs … worst-case scenarios concocted by green campaigners … prophecies of doom … temporary disintegration of the ancient Roman state … eventual replacement by the technologically far superior civilisation of the Renaissance …”
Yesss Benny … for the most part I’ll just be leaving you happy in your delusions of “skepticism”, sorry.
April 9th, 2006 at 10:22 am
John
If you are really that concerned about the future of coral reefs, the information below might just cheer you up a little (unless you simply cannot stomach good news). And another cordial advice: next time you are spoiling for a debate, choose more convincing arguments.
Fears fade on Barrier Reef bleaching disaster
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18661475-2702,00.html
See also Peter Ridd’s assessment on coral reefs and global warming
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000762.html
“If the climate is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions, there could be many plausible consequences, such as melting ice and polar bears not having a home. However, of all the ecosystems in the world, coral reefs are in virtually the best position to come through unscathed. They are certainly not the worlds canary as has sometimes been stated.
Consider the following points
(1) Corals are a tropical species. They like warm water. Most of the species found on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), for example, are also found in areas with much warmer water.
(2) In a couple of hundred million years of existence, corals have survived through hotter, (and more seriously colder) periods.
(3) Coral tissue thickness, often seen as an indicator of coral health, is generally higher for corals in hotter water. Some of the highest tissue thickness’ measured have occur around PNG where the water is far hotter than the GBR.
(4) For all the hype about the bleaching events on the GBR, most of the reef did not bleach and almost all that did bleach has almost fully recovered.
(5) From the statistical viewpoint it is highly improbable that bleaching only started to occur in the last 25 years. Bleaching on the GBR occurs in summers when there is a combination of low cloud cover and light winds. This drives up water temperatures to a degree or two about normal. The water temperature has not increased by a degree over the last 25 years and thus bleaching must have been occurring previously, though quite possibly at a reduced rate. The apparent increase in bleaching is quite possibly due to the very large number of scientists and managers who are now interested in the phenomenon.
(6) Data of coral growth rates from massive corals indicate that there has been a small but significant increase over the last 100 or so years. This is related to the small but significant temperature increase that has occurred in the last hundred or so years. This is not surprising, coral, by and large like hot water.
(7) Some corals clearly are killed by unusually elevated temperature. These are not the long-lived massive corals but rather the plate and staghorn corals. These susceptible corals have the living philosophy of a weed, i.e. live fast and die young. The massives are in for the long haul, they are like the forest giants that live for hundreds or years and must thus be able to withstand the extreme conditions, such as high temperature and cyclones, that will temporarily wipe out there frail but fast growing brethren.
(8) Even the susceptible corals seem to be able to adapt to higher temperatures by replacing the symbiotic plants (zooxanthellae) that are embedded within them with more suitable species.
(9) If we see a sealevel rise due to the thermal expansion of the ocean, we will see a great expansion in the area of the GBR under coral. This is because the reef flats, which now have almost no coral due to the FALL in sealevel of the last 5000 years, will be covered even by the lowest spring tides. The presently dead reef flats, which are a very large proportion of the reef (perhaps the majority), will come alive. So though rising sealevel might be bad if you live in a small South Pacific Island nation, it will be good for coral.
I have a very high regard for the hardiness of corals. The GBR was borne at a time of rapidly rising sealevel, very high turbidity and very rapidly rising temperature. Presently, they live in areas of extreme temperature (40 degree), in muddy embayments and in regions continuously affected by runoff. Provided they are not grossly overfished, as has happened in the Caribbean, they are very adaptable systems.
My message is that if you must make an argument for the Kyoto Protocol, then using coral reefs is a poor, and implausible choice. In the final analysis, corals like hot water, polar bears do not. Corals will do badly in an ice age, polar bears and alpine meadows can suffer in a warm period.”
April 9th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Benben,
To your (1) just because corals are tropical doesn’t mean they don’t have upper bounds on temp tolerances. People that have taken just the basic biology classes recognize the hole in your argumentation right away. Another way to look at it: rice is tropical, yet why does its productivity decrease above a certain temp. Gosh, it’s tropical, right?
To your (2) you conveniently omit that the dieoffs in corals may mean they are not adapted to the current *rate* of warming.
The rest of your argumentation is similarly facile and won’t fool the typical Prometheus reader. But thanks for the gallant effort.
Best,
D
April 9th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Benny thanks, I appreciate both the impressive cut and paste effort you’ve made and your collegiate advice. Your source on coral reefs Peter Ridd may indeed have an interesting, even reasonably well-founded, opinion … but why settle for an opinion from just one of Jennifer Marohasy’s good friends when you could get the fully nuanced summary on coral reefs in one short and readable page by the many specialists who’ve contributed to the IPCC? http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/regional/070.htm
Like many good things the IPCC report could be cherrypicked by a dishonest or bad reader, but I’m confident it’s a very fair summary.
So we return perhaps to the point that anthropogenic climate change forces us to weigh risks and probabilities, and to make decisions about what we value in this world. While I think of that, both the IPCC and I agree with Pielke’s junior and senior that there are many other anthropogenic threats to regional microclimate than just the greenhouse gas effect. Nature’s already complex before we come blundering in trying to feed the burgeoning middle classes of China on your coal, Benny.
Now I’m very skeptical of Jennifer Marohasy and her friends (oh – turns out they’re co-signatories of yours Benny … small world!) Bill Kininmonth and Bob Carter, because of their prolix propensity to talk a very great talk about subjects on which one or more or all of their qualifications, experience or capability is insufficient to bear the load of the noise they make. It’s no wonder their opinions aren’t turning up in IPCC reports and they really ought to be ashamed of themselves … yet, after all, I find I can still thank your link to Jennifer Marohasy for a closing quote:
“MARK BANNERMAN: To that end, the report [CSIRO Australia] names what it sees as the likely trouble spots around Australia. The Barrier Reef is at risk, so are wetlands and mangroves. If you live in Darwin, Cairns or Broome, be prepared for rising waters and storms. Having done that, it looks at the strategies to protect those areas most at risk. It concludes the key responses will involve the forward planning for water and energy use, disaster control strategies, and more funding for scientific modelling of climate change.
DR JENNIFER MAROHASY: I actually think that it’s good if we can get beyond this debate of whether increase in carbon dioxide levels are driving more extreme climate events. I think that we need to move beyond that and accept and recognise that whether or not we can reduce carbon dioxide levels, there will be climate change.
DR CLIVE HAMILTON: We don’t need more reports telling us that climate change is real, extremely worrying and needs to be tackled. We know that. What we want to hear from the government is what it’s going to do about it”.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1423001.htm
April 10th, 2006 at 5:27 am
Ah well. Gnashing teeth and angry responses to silver linings and reassuring research findings was to be expected from the doom-and-gloom brigade.
For those who are not instinctively drawn to glumness, negativity or apocalyptic trepidation, the empirical data on the expansion of coral reefs in a warming world is much more encouraging than generally thought.
http://www.esajournals.org/esaonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=1540-9295&volume=002&issue=06&page=0307
April 10th, 2006 at 7:07 am
A pity though that you cannot explain the point of your reference or whether the timescales implicit in that study have any relevance to our era, or whether those observations might or might not be peculiar to the single species studied … it might have been cheering! (but of course would have required reading an actual paper rather than quickly googling for an abstract)
You may also be mistaking unmedicated, unprejudiced and engaged relationships with reality for “glumness, negativity or apocalyptic trepidation”, I don’t know.
April 10th, 2006 at 8:46 am
Why don’t you just calm down and read the paper instead? Who knows – if you’re open-minded, it might cheer you up after all.
http://faculty.disl.org/Publications/Precht%20and%20Aronson%20Frontiers%202004.pdf
April 10th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Speaking of Bob Carter, here’s an interesting elucidation:
http://tinyurl.com/sxkue
P.S. “Benben”??? Somebody left the computer too close to the crib again…
April 10th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Benben FUD Phrase count:
FUD phrases:
1. silver linings
2. reassuring research findings
3. the doom-and-gloom brigade
4. glumness, negativity or apocalyptic trepidation
5. the empirical data…generally thought.
Words in comment: 55
Words/FUD phrase: 11
% of comment in FUD phrase: 61.818%
Historical Benny Peiser average: 17%
Uh…ahem.
Please excuse all the statistics. It’s baseball season & I wax poetic…
What john frankis said: Benny likes Google Scholar but doesn’t read the journals themselves, as we found out in the Oreskes debacle.
Certainly he may have read this *Front. Ecol. Environ.* paper he linked to, but I highly doubt he understands it, as it doesn’t support his tout (huh).
BTW (aside): I like how this natural sciences journal uses a sum-up box like the medical journals do. It allows us to look at the ‘nutshell’ right away and see that it disagrees with Benny’s tout/wish.
Anyway, open-mindedness is not the requisite to use this paper to make such a tout/wish, but simple-mindedness may be.
The question is: wilfull or näive misleader?
Best,
D
April 10th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Have you read the paper Benny – yes or no?
April 10th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Steve, Bob Carter is a _geologist_ who just talks too much. I prefer Tim Lambert’s response to his latest self-promotion (that you’ve linked to), found at http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/04/a_picture_is_worth_a_thousand.php
First Carter gets caught redhanded either cherrypicking data or making a dumb “point” (Tim is able to quote Carter’s own words to prove him a fool at best, more likely mendacious). Then just consider for a moment Carter’s language: “global warming devotee” … “tosh” … “many thousands of independent scientists” … “bandwagon” … “gravy train of the IPCC” … “alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change” … “larded with words such as” … “ignorance of scientific facts and principles” …
That dumpster of emotive bumf comes just from _two_ paragraphs by Carter, a geologist, trumpeting loudly on subjects that are well outside his area of understanding (I think of the various subdisciplines of climatology that require comprehension and capacity in the hard sciences that he does not have). You get to choose whether to sign on, with Benny, to the braying delusions of competence of this style of “skeptic”, or not.
April 11th, 2006 at 2:43 am
Let’s not beat around the bush. The paper makes pretty clear that John’s doomsday fears about the world’s coral reefs becoming extinct during his lifetime are simply unjustified. The probability of this horror scenario is essentially zero. If you want to see what happens to people who grossly exaggerate the potential risk for coral reefs, read this
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001306.html
And remember: People who cry wolf too often won’t be trusted in the long run.
April 11th, 2006 at 3:53 am
The More Concise Benny: “No of course I haven’t read let alone understood the paper that I’m blathering about”.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:38 am
John
Run out of arguments? Here are some more to help you calm down: “Our analysis suggests that annual average coral reef calcification rate will increase with future ocean warming and eventually exceed pre-industrial rates by about 35% by 2100. Our results suggest that present coral reef calcification rates are equivalent to levels in the late 19th century and does not support previous suggestions of large and potentially
catastrophic decreases in the future.
Ben I. McNeil, Richard J. Matear, and David J. Barnes: Coral reef calcification and climate change: The effect of ocean warming. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L22309, doi:10.1029/2004GL021541, 2004
http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~bmcneil/McNeil_et_al,2004.pdf
April 11th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Shorter Benny:
OK, that paper didn’t work out, how ’bout this one?
Best,
D
April 11th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Benny your fulsome ranting about papers that you’ve never read is transparent and I assume fools exactly nobody unfortunate enough to have followed your fantasies in this thread this far.
Benny – have (m)any of your nearest and dearest observed out loud in your vicinity that a side-effect of contemporary anti-depressants can be a blissful lack of concern with ordinary risks and dangers of life, a degree of disconnection from reality? Google for an abstract or two then cherrypick the ones that tell you what you prefer to hear.
April 11th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
John F,
Sorry, I don’t have to sign on with anybody – particularly Tim Lambert. He sounds to me like a typical dupe of the Oil for Food guys. Disproving a part of a statement doesn’t disprove it all. I think Bob has some good points. I’m sure Lambert does too, but there’s too much chaff to look through to find it. Quite a bit of truth by Roger here:
http://tinyurl.com/s5kdq
Including jackals supporting the “consensus” by nipping at heels and quoting a lot of trivia that doesn’t fit a coherent picture.