A Conversation with a Climate Scientist
March 3rd, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
[UPDATE: Michael Tobis responds and clarifies in the comments, be sure to read these remarks as well.]
[UPDATE 2: And this closing comment by Michael Tobis.]
[UPDATE 3: Thread closed. I don't have time to police the entries which are veering off topic in any case.]
I am beginning to get a better understanding why some scientists react so strongly to some of the things we write here at Prometheus. For instance, one climate scientist suggests that my calling out Al Gore for misrepresenting the science of disasters and climate change (as well as Andy Revkin’s comparison of that to George Will’s misrepresentations) to be morally comparable to killing 1,000 people. I kid you not. I wonder how many climate scientists share this perspective.
Keith Kloor, a journalist, summarizes the exchange I had this week with that climate scientist:
What are we to make of Michael Tobis, a University of Texas climate scientist, who on his blog recently said this about Revkin:
I don’t think his dragging Gore into Will’s muck was a minor transgression of a fine point of propriety. I think it was palpably evil.
Palpably evil. Chew on that one for a minute.
Oh, but wait, Tobis is just getting warmed up. In the comment thread of his post, he has this exchange (which I’m excerpting) with Roger Pielke Jr (who Tobis and other bloggers blame equally for his role in the Revkin piece that equates Gore with Will). Tobis:
It is difficult for me to state how grave I think the transgression of ethics committed by Revkin and Pielke in this matter is.
Consider some statistical expectation of human lives that will likely be lost as a consequence of the delay due to this confusion. I think such a number could present a very grave picture indeed.
Pielke Jr.:
If you think that it was unethical for me to point out that Gore was misrepresenting the relationship of disasters and climate change (based on my research I should add), then I am really amazed.
What kind of scientist says that misrepresentations are OK or should be ignored if politicians with the right values are making them?
[And maybe I read you wrong, but are you really suggesting that Revkin and I are complicit in "statistical deaths"? Please do clarify that odd claim ...]
Tobis obliges:
Implying an equivalence between Gore, who is constantly treading a fine line between effective politics and truthful description of risks, and George Will, who is wrong from beginning to end in conception, detail and emphasis is unacceptable because it perpetuates this dangerous skew.
As for the scope of the ethical risk, let us consider the possibility that the behavior of the Times and the Post this year increases the chance of an extreme event with a premature mortality of a billion people by a mere part per million, a per cent of a per cent of a per cent. The expected mortality from this is a thousand people. Is that morally equivalent to actually killing a thousand people? It’s not all that obvious to me that it isn’t.
Pielke is incredulous:
Wow.
These sort comments give far more ammo to your political enemies than anything I could ever say or do.
Eye opening stuff.
It’s worth reading the exchange in its entirety to see the debased logic now being employed by some climate advocates.
Tobis asks later in the exchange:
I’d sure like to know how I “gave ammunition to my enemies”.
Anyone care to give him an answer? (And please focus on the arguments being made not the people making them. Thanks!)
Popularity: 10% [?]
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:53 am
Roger,
Thank you so much for linking to Kloor’s blog. I read back quite a way. I found a lot that was “interesting” including this — “The debate today has moved past Is global warming happening to How do we de-carbonize the world economy.” Perhaps a good topic for another day.
As for the topic of the day — the visceral reactions which seem to lead to an abandonment of logic and the embrace of character assassination — I think you hit the nail squarely when you talk about giving ammo to the other side. Mann’s recent response to Solomon is an even bigger eye-opener.
Tobis apparently fails to understand that his reaction makes his expert opinion subject to impeachment. At least two grounds come into play — bias and competence. The ferocity of his reaction calls into question his ability to view the evidence dispassionately, without bias. And his employment of logical fallacy calls into question his competence. The opinion of one who engages in faulty logic isn’t worth much.
But Tobis isn’t an isolated case. The massive emotional upheaval which arose in response to Will, Revkin and the Wash Post included large segments of the environmental lobby. Their loss of bearings raises questions about the integrity of factual inquiry in such an irrational atmosphere. Reports that many scientists feel intense pressure to conform certainly appear more credible after this past week.
How much trust should society put in “science” which is produced under enormous pressure to conform to certain expectations?
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:55 am
OK. maybe I can add something. First of all, I was an Assoc. Prof. at Texas A&M in a former life, and I know not to believe anything a Longhorn says
.
But seriously, one thing folks with a scientific background, like me (forestry, chemistry) immediately notice when they take an interest in climate science is that its a relative new discipline and there ia a great deal of uncertainty involved. (As far as I can tell so far, all we can say for sure is that we think there has been a gentle warming since the Little Ice Age, and we really don’t know why). Also, there is probably no small amount of actual pseudo-science involved in some portions of climate science, as so well documented by Steve McIntyre and friends. Given that great uncertainty it is plainly absurd for some scientist to talk about “death trains” or people dying because folks don’t take some action they advocate. Thus, such scientists lose credibility with other scientists like me who tend to immediately “write off” all arguments from such people (hey, it’s not right, but it’s human nature).
The argument, on its face, is simply illogical, because it merely states that if you don’t believe me, you are potentially guilty of killing people. Anyone could make the counter argument that if we do something to mitigate climate change, we will kill millions by making energy too expensive.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:56 am
I don’t understand that arguments are never made about the impact of our CO2 mitigation strategy has already had. In 2007 and 2008 there were riots in at least 2 dozen cities around the world over the rising price of food commodities that was at least partly to blame on diversion of food crops to biofuels. The high price of these commodities also limited the amount of food that could be purchased to provide nutritional supplements to famine prone regions. It is estimated that 30 million more people starved as a result. For some reason, the human toll and the environmental impact of “renewable” fuel and “green” solutions just gets a pass. I submit the human toll and environmental toll is much greater from some of the “green” solutions yet rarely is there a mention of these in the main stream media.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:13 am
As a layperson, I’m stunned by the remarks of Tobis, but not surprised (if that makes sense). He certainly provides more “ammunition” to the rest of us that a growing percentage of members of the scientific community are no longer committed to scientific truth but instead are beholden to political agendas.
I’m not always in agreement with Dr. Pielke, but he’s on my daily reading list as he speaks without politically “forked” tongue. I might not like what he always says, but his objective seems to be truth no matter which political side is gored.
In contrast, based on Tobis comments, I’m sure his audience has narrowed even further, which is a well deserved self-inflicted wound. If he only wants his hymn sung by an ever exclusive choir, he should keep bringing on the venom and non-scientific emotions.
C3H Editor, http://www.c3headlines.com
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:38 am
I’d like to point out that the laws/environmental issues Roger referenced in his exchange can be viewed as bipartisan. And good point C3H about the “choir” becoming more exclusive. Legislatively, you don’t want to preach to your own choir, you want to convert/convince new parishioners in re: to your policy prescriptions, not your worldview.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:43 am
Michael Tobis says this on his blog:
I am selectively quoted in an article on Prometheus to make me look like a maniac.
Oh, well. Welcome to the big leagues I guess.
My Prometheus login is stubbornly not working and I am late for something… Will try to effect some repairs later.
For what it’s worth I have already withdrawn my attaching Pielke to Revkin and stated that my ethical concern in the present matter attaches to Revkin only. If somebody would please tell Roger that I’d appreciate it.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:44 am
How many lives could we save if, instead of never ending climate summits aimed at ‘emission impossible,’ we held summits on tackling poverty? So, I’d turn the argument back on Tobis – all this futile effort and money wasted on trying to control or influence the weather/climate with a single, small factor like CO2 is a distraction from real, solvable world problems – that’s what’s really killing people.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:56 am
The argument seems to go like this.
Catastrophic man made warming is underway. It may lead to disasters on a large scale. In order to avert these disasters we need to take action. If people think there is doubt about either the extent of warming, the cause of the warming, or the connexion to disasters, they will oppose these actions. Therefore we must not say anything that disputes or appears to cast doubt on any of it. If we do, and if it leads people not to act or postpone action, and if we are right about it all, this postponement of action could lead to the deaths of billions.
Moral fury of Tobis’ kind is perhaps appropriate to someone avoiding or preventing the doing of things which will prevent disasters threatening billions of lives. In the present case however the moral fury is directed at the expression of doubts about whether the case for doing these things has really been made. It is a curious sort of transference, we are no longer furiously arguing in favor of doing A or B, we are furiously arguing against discussing the case for doing A or B.
It may be that this occurs because the movement has not so far defined even any sketched out program of action tailored to deal with the alleged problem, and it is replacing the hard work of doing this, with indulgence in righteous indignation. Tobis’ energy would be better spent in selling a program, if there was one, or putting one together, if there is not.
Its going to be very difficult indeed to put together a program, and when one does it, all sorts of very difficult questions are going to come up, of the sort that will come up with any truly massive civil engineering program involving massive social change.
To start off with, we may be sure we can prove that rising CO2 ppm is causing warming. But have you ever seen any serious evidence that if we lower CO2 ppm we will produce cooling? Or any serious studies of how fast we would produce whatever cooling there is evidence for? This is engineering, we’d expect to see some work on feasibility and fitness for purpose before starting, just as we would for constructing a hydro dam.
Then we’d find ourselves looking at the environmental and health and safety and maintenance implications of several hundred thousand windmills, and or solar powered generators, and their transmission networks. If you look at the UK offshore windmill proposals, it must be a real question how on earth they maintain the things and keep them running. Do they have enough boats, enough skilled people, enough fine weather periods? What accident rates are they budgeting? Not to mention how much installed capacity they will have to put in, in order to be able to support a given level of base load.
If we look at transport, we are talking building huge new rail networks as well as lowering people movement by an order or two of magnitude. If we are moving people to cycling on any scale, we have to think about accident rates, making roads safe. If we think about moving to low energy farming, there are issues about productivity and labor inputs, and labor rates. How are we going to get those guys back in the fields with hoes? We will have to, if we don’t have massive use of weedkillers and insecticides. How are we going to get composting done again? We are going to have to move to mixed farming from monoculture. And keep food production going at the same time. Its massive.
It is not that it cannot be done, it probably can, given commitment. It is that Tobis’s style of moral indignation is the antithesis of working out and selling such a program. Even after he has convinced enough people that it will actually have the desired effects on temperature in the desired timescale, and he is not even starting on that yet.
If you read reactions to this stuff over on Open Mind, what you find is people really think both that this problem is huge enough to imminently threaten human civilization, and that the only thing we can or should do about it is personal action, like driving a Prius or eating less meat. Because we must not ask people to do things they do not want to do.
The correct approach is that the movement must be forced to confront the implications of what it says it believes – and which may actually be true. That is, if human civilization is at stake, if we are at or near a tipping point, if it is so serious a matter that to raise doubts about it is totally irresponsible, then things are bad enough that we need to move to massive social programs at once, and people are going to have to accept immediate, massive lifestyle changes. Whether they like it or not. And so the first step is to sketch out what these programs are and show how they will do the job.
And anything that distracts from this, including the self indulgent expressions of moral indignation, must be rebuked as being part of the problem not part of the solution. The only thing there is time for, if the movement is right, is making and implementing a program more massive than anything we have ever seen. We are talking about a program whose size makes the industrialization of China seem puny. The question for Tobis is whether he is intending to lead or follow or whether he would maybe like to get out of the way. At the moment he is just standing around getting uselessly hysterical.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:02 am
That particular argument is basically a “begging the question” structure which assumes that since his position is right, yours must be wrong. Then it adds a bit of argument by emotive language by implying that many will die if you speak your mind.
There is no real content to evaluate and comment on.
For a good list of fallacious arguments see http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#digression. Regular readers of the global warming blogs will recognize many of these argument types.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:02 am
Wow, Roger you would not be treated worst if you really were a denier.
I’ve explain it before and will explain it again.
The Tobis and Joe Romm of this world are the MVP of the denier cause. In fact compared to these guy I’m proud to be called a denier.
That Tobis support misrepresentation by Al Gore shows how inadequate and weak the science of climate change really is. If the science was so strong that no one could ever reach another conclusion, as people like Tobis pretend the science is, why in the world would they need it to be misrepresented. Of course, if the science is weak than it doesn’t matter that it is misrepresented, as long as it supports the cause.
As for the damage that the position of Tobis does to his cause compared to that of Prof Pielke jr. Well with Tobis position, I find myself in a position to fight any action based on ridiculous claim, while with the approach of Prof Pielke jr, I can’t but support some of his proposed action/solution.
Thank you Mr Tobis and Romm, continue your great work
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:26 am
8, Michael: It looks like maybe the “program” has been put together: http://masterresource.org/?p=1217#more-1217
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:40 am
-6- above, sorry, html dropped out:
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:48 am
The way in which I am being misrepresented here is this: I never said it was evil to criticize Gore as such. (Nor do I think Gore is mystically above criticism, though my critiques of him have been perhaps different in character from some of yours.)
I said it was evil to publicly imply an equivalence of the value of the opinions of Gore and Will, presuming one actually believed otherwise. Is it fair to presume that willful lying is something that few of us would approve?
The lack of context is the main reason for me being cast as an extremist here. I would ask readers to consider being fair to me despite other disagreements we might have.
I was over-hasty in linking Roger to Andy Revkin in this matter, and have said so on my blog. For that I apologize.
My beef is with Revkin and not Pielke, and if Roger doesn’t flog this too hard (Morano has already picked it up and deemed it press release worthy!) it will stay that way.
I understand there are readers here who find Will equally credible to Gore or even more so. That is a matter in which we disagree in the extreme, but not a matter in which I would accuse you of being unethical. Only those of you who actually believe that Gore is more credible than Will and make statements to the contrary are behaving unethically, as is anyone who misrepresents their beliefs on matters of grave consequence.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:54 am
Tobis: “…a fine line between effective politics and truthful description of risks…”
In other words, effective politics = distortion. Well, I won’t argue with that.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:57 am
[...] could get so angry about people criticizing a politician? Here is an amazing exchange seen on Prometheus. Some highlights and excerpts [...]
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:57 am
Michael- I’ll highlight your response in an update to the main post. Though I am not really sure what you are saying now …
Revkin was or was not engaging in “willful lying”? And if he was what was the lie?
And if you now accept that it was OK to point out that Gore’s presentation was at odds with the relevant peer reviewed science (including my own research), then thanks for this (and no apology needed).
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:16 am
I am saying that I don’t believe Revkin remotely believes that Will’s and Gore’s opinion should be given comparable weight, but that his column was carefully crafted to do so.
Presuming I am correct about Revkin’s beliefs (I have tried to make that caveat explicit), he was misrepresenting the facts as he understood them. I am, to be sure, genuinely and deeply angry about Revkin’s column, but not (as Joe Romm is) because he criticized Gore.
Also, quoting from a comment on my blog, my writing has been placed
“in the worst possible context, as if you were explicitly accusing him of causing 1000 excess deaths. You did not, you were merely explaining why that possibility makes this a moral argument for you. And that’s vitally important.”
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:29 am
-17-Michael,
1. No one here has said that you accused anyone of “causing 1,000 excess deaths” . . .
I opened the post with:
” … to be the morally comparable to killing 1,000 people …”
Key phrase “morally comparable”
2. So, to be absolutely clear, presuming you are correct about Revkin’s beliefs (your caveat) you are saying (a) “yes” that you think that Revkin was “willfully lying” and (b) this act by Revkin was morally equivalent to killing 1,000 people?
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:50 am
All I said was, and all I’ll say is, that such a conclusion is not obviously false.
I don’t propose to defend it, but I’d be interested in how someone could refute it.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:25 pm
How can rational discussions be conducted when the subjects are based on presumptive motives and assumed behaviors and beliefs plus WAGs of future outcomes?
Based on what has been said so far, as I understand it, are Al Gore and certified climatologists responsible for the deaths that have in fact already occurred because of the ongoing ethanol debacle?
And on a perpendicular issue, it is not clear to me that MT is a certified climate scientist. If the door is opened for MT that will let many many others engaged in all kinds of technical / engineering / scientific investigations inside.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Pielke Jr.: “Do you think that a man should have the same privilege as a sponge?”
Tobis: “Of course!”
Pielke Jr.: “Revkin wishes to be accorded the same privilege as a sponge. He wishes to think.”
Tobis: “But Revkin is wrong! He is deluded! He has lost his way!”
Pielke Jr.: “It’s sad we don’t all have your positive knowledge of what is right and wrong.”
…
Tobis: “There is only one great truth!”
Pielke Jr.: “Anthropogenic Global Warming! AGW according to Tobis! Science speaks to Tobis and Tobis tells the world! Tobis! Tobis! Tobis Almighty”
Sorry, but when a scientist starts sounding like a Creationist, rather than a rationalist, he or she needs to take a deep breath.
AGW theory poses a challenge to mankind that cannot be ignored because of the risks entailed — on all sides. That means there will be heated debate. , but claims of moral superiority are best left to plays unless one has, like myself on occasions, a monopoly on the truth.
Still, thank you, Roger, in trying to get difficult points explored.
I’d still like a list of blogs you consider best at presenting reasoned debate.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Dear Professor Tobis
The problem I see is one of exaggeration and therefore defensivness.
Climate Scientists who make much of the small rise in temperature in the last 150 years, a timescale which is geologically insignificant and a rate of increase that has occurred many times in the past, set themselves up to be knocked down and ridiculed.
Graphs where the vertical scale is distorted to show a dramatic increase in temperature brings science into disrepute. Graphs which would best be left in the hands of someone running a Ponzi Scheme.
Graphs that are made using poor statistical methods. The Hockey Stick graph, see Wegman et al. Which are used to alarm and influence public policy and fail to advance scientific knowledge.
Rutherford once said there were only two fields of science, Physics and Stamp collecting.
If he were alive today I think he would say there were only three fields, Physics, Stamp Collecting and Climatology.
The world is going through a financial crisis which when resolved we will await the next one which will be caused by Carbon Trading.
You and the Global Warming lobby lost the argument years ago when you started calling people Deniers, Naysayers Sceptics etc.
A Scientist who is not sceptical is not a scientist of any merit.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Prof. Tobis,
If you believe your agrument of “morally comparable”, couldn’t the same arguement be made in reverse? It is pretty clear in the world today that health & lifespan is a function of the energy a particular society uses. The countries that use more energy per capita are healthier & live longer because they are in a prosperous society, which is tied directly to energy use (and thus CO2 production). So, if we impliment massive curbs on energy production (the only realistic way to reduce CO2), wouldn’t we expect the overall health & lifespan of people to decrease & then YOU would be the guilty one of a “morally comparable” death of 1000’s. And this is not even considering that the CO2 – AGW may not be valid at all. And if this were the case & unneeded energy curbs were put into place, how guilty would you be then.
Not that I think you are guilty, but I do think you need to be more careful how you choose your words. You have to consider the backlash against all environmentalism that may be coming due to a languishing economy & taxes for causes that many see as nothing more than a big govt money grab. The more extreme the envirnmental position that is made, the stronger the backlash will be (that’s human nature) and Ii am afraid that the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater. And that ultimately will make the environment truly worse, not better.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Unbelievable! Dr. Tobis, is there a computor model that projects the number of deaths caused by a columnists opinions? Where did that idea come from?????
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
[...] of Will & Gore, Revkin and Roger Pielke Jr (in chronological order?) Roger discussed some today linking to Keith Kloor who links to Tom [...]
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Jeff L, yes, that is correct. The argument cuts both ways.
Where the ethical question comes in is when one acts in a way that is not in accord with one’s beliefs, especially if one is in a position of influence.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:09 pm
According to FAO, world hunger has increased to cover 963 million people. http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/8836/icode/ A significant portion of infant mortality can be attributable to malnourishment. See: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/140893.php and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition. It is likely that there are millions of premature deaths each year due to malnutrition. FAO claims that $30 billion/year would reduce malnutrition by half.
So, should we spend $30 billion next year reducing hunger and saving potentially millions of lives next year, or should we spend $30 billion on reducing the United State’s carbon footprint?
I must admit that I am in the Bjørn Lomborg camp. I devote my limited remaining resources after paying my taxes toward reducing poverty.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Sorry Roger, but you have no idea why so many scientists react so strongly to what you write.
A major reason is that so many of them think you misrepresent what they write and this is a good example. You say: “For instance, one climate scientist suggests that my calling out Al Gore for misrepresenting the science of disasters and climate change (as well as Andy Revkin’s comparison of that to George Will’s misrepresentations) to be morally comparable to killing 1,000 people. I kid you not.” Micheal Tobais did not say that, and it should have been clear that he didn’t.
If you didn’t want to engender so much hostility from climate scientists you can start by changing the update at the start of this blog to read something like: “Micheal Tobais makes clear in the comments that I misinterpreted him”.
I used to read everything you wrote. An analogous situation years ago led me to cancel my order for “The Honest Broker” and largely abandon reading your site. It is a shame because you do have a lot of interesting things to say, but I have lost all confidence in your ability to correctly interpret what others say.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
-28-Nosmo
On this exact point, Michael Tobis spoke for himself in #18 and #19 above.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
29-Roger,
Actually it is not the same point.
Do not you sense any irony in misinterpreting a post that deals with a pattern of misinterpreting what people write?
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:04 pm
-30-Nosmo
I have no idea what you are referring to. If you are saying that Tobis did not assert moral comparability, then this is contradicted by Tobis himself. If you are asserting something else, then it is too cryptic for me to figure out.
Given that Tobis is a presence on this thread, he is probably the best authority on what he meant or said, and he has weighed in at #19 above (among other places).
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:07 pm
sorry should read: “Do you not sense…”
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
-19- Micahel Tobis
The point is it is impossible to say at present weather there has been any increase in natural disasters due to anthropogenic influence. Also it is impossible to state the converse. Are you suggesting that if you come up with a conclusion that is incapable of being proved right or wrong that it is a statement which is at all worth making in respect to science? Of course not, such statements are only political. The IPCC even referenced Karl Popper’s ‘The logic of sceintific discovery’ so I thought the proponents camp would be well aware of this. Yours is a malicious political statement at that.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:06 pm
“I’d sure like to know how I ‘gave ammunition to my enemies’.”
“Anyone care to give him an answer?”
I don’t know who his enemies are, so it’s tough to say where they get their ammunition. But I find these comments puzzling:
1) “As for the scope of the ethical risk, let us consider the possibility that the behavior of the Times and the Post this year increases the chance of an extreme event with a premature mortality of a billion people by a mere part per million, a per cent of a per cent of a per cent. The expected mortality from this is a thousand people.”
Ummm…premature mortality of a billion people? From a “extreme event” related to climate change? The total number of people who die from all causes each year is about 60 million. So 1 billion is 17+ years of all the deaths in the whole world.
2) “Is that morally equivalent to actually killing a thousand people? It’s not all that obvious to me that it isn’t.”
Something Andrew Revkin writes in the NYT isn’t obviously different, from a standpoint of moral equivalency, to killing 1000 people? I doubt more than 1-in-100 people would agree with you. (I would have written 1-in-1000, but AGW religion is obviously quite strong.)
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Again, my problem is that, though what Revkin said might well be considered plausible around these parts, it is almost surely not taken as plausible by Revkin himself.This in turn, at least arguably, makes him culpable in the event that he influences policy in a way that risks disastrous outcomes, and it is exactly that which makes me angry about the episode.
Meanwhile the CEI just published an article suggesting 150,000 US deaths per year would be a fair estimate from reducing coal production, whereas I was merely making a case for a low risk high impact event. They didn’t actually discount culpability from the effectiveness of advocacy as I did, nor did they couch it in moral uncertainty as I did.
They just issued a flat-out prediction with no mention of uncertainty or contingency at all. I’ll be interested to see if comparable outrage emerges in their direction for this.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Shortly after the Asian Tsunami I heard a climate scientist on the radio. He told the news station that Bush would be responsiblle for thousands more deaths because of sea level rise would exacerbate tsunami affects. Knowing a little about what causes wave height in a tsunami I was appalled. I guess this is where we are headed.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Michael T – ‘Meanwhile the CEI just published an article suggesting 150,000 US deaths per year would be a fair estimate from reducing coal production, ‘
It’s not such an outlandish estimation. I remember it being claimed that cold weather caused the deaths of 30,000 people a year – mainly the elderly poor – here in the UK in the early 1980s. They were unable to afford fuel. America is that much larger. Crude perhaps, and maybe exaggerated. But what figure would you estimate for deaths as a consequence of increases in the price of fuel?
We might think back to how the elderly in France suffered in the 2003 heatwave – 14,000 over a two-week episode, again, if memory serves. The moral is that climate kills, whether it is changing or not, but that it’s a damn sight easier to deal with if you’ve got cheap coal, either to heat your home, or power the A/C.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:10 pm
-35-Michael
Here is where you lose me, with the CEI comparison are you now suggesting that you said that Revkin’s article will _cause_ 1,000 deaths?
CEI is asserting cause and effect.
If you are saying that Revkin’s alleged transgression is “morally equivalent” to causing 1,000 deaths, then this is quite different than saying that it will cause 1,000 deaths. I still don’t know what you are saying.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Dr. Tobis,
I haven’t read the CEI study so I am answering a hypothetical.
I do find myself reacting differently to the CEI study than to your earlier statement. I also don’t think that my reaction to the CEI study would be that different than to a study in Nature projecting 150,000 additional US deaths from warming caused by emission of CO2. In either of those cases they would be suggesting an outcome based on specific action or inaction. I would in any event be quite skeptical of either claim.
Clearly it is permissible to make projections about the effects of policy. Obviously to the extent those projections are not scientific, and are just attempts to affect policy they should be discounted.
In your case you are essentially saying that by writing something someone is the moral equivalent of a mass murderer. Especially if you think they are contradicting their own beliefs. (And I think it is a distinction without a difference to say that you aren’t saying they are the same, you just don’t know how to tell them apart.) This is a very dangerous path from a civil liberties viewpoint.
I suppose you could argue that the CEI study is effectively calling anyone who pursues a reduction in coal output a mass murderer, but this is at least one level of indirection from what you did . If the authors of that study said something like that, then I would heartily condemn them.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Michael T – ‘I was merely making a case for a low risk high impact event’.
It’s much easier to make the CEI’s point safely. We know that people who can’t buy fuel often die.
The problem for you with respect to you ‘low risk high impact’ moral calculation (providing ammo for ‘deniers’ like me) is that the ‘low risk’ is amplified to make the basis of your argument. It just sounds shrill, frankly. And it’s disproportionate, because if we start to make ‘low risk high impact’ central to the way we plan for things, we inadvertantly generate risks which multiply. EG, we make coal expensive, and people start to drop. We loose economies of scale for the sake of ’sustainability’. And so on. We exchange modern lifestyles for increasingly primitive lifestyles for the sake of survival, yet make life more risky in the process. This is a failure of the precautionary principle.
Another problem with your moral calculation is that the only moral agents are the people commenting on the climate debate. It’s as if the unstoppable cascade of consequences begins on Revkin’s pages. But even if your low-risk scenario materialises, there are many ways it could have been prevented in ways other than mitigation. If you want a more solid moral argument, then you’d need to explain why the other 5 billion people wouldn’t take it upon themselves to extend some help to the billion who were vulnerable to the event.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Roger-31
My post was a direct response to your opening statement: “I am beginning to get a better understanding why some scientists react so strongly to some of the things we write here at Prometheus.”
I believe a major reason scientists and others react so strongly because they very often believe you misrepresent what they write*. You have a long history of this. It is why I gave up regularly reading your writings long ago.
Please reread what I wrote. What it is cryptic about it I do not know, but perhaps that is my limitation.
*Whether you literally did or not is besides the point.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Micheal,
Why do you think Revkin does not believe what he wrote is plausible?
Based on your description of what you think Revkin said, it seems to me you simply misunderstand what Revkin said and meant. Having misunderstood both the clear meaning of Revkin’s words and what he intended people to understand, you criticize Revkin for having saying something you think he doesn’t believe.
The problem is: Revkin didn’t say or imply what you think he said! So: Revkin is cleared.
Well, had Revkin said something he did not believe, I might see your point.
It could equally well be argued that your failure to read and understand what Revkin actually said, followed by your criticism also risks similarly disastrous outcomes. After all, some who you wish to persuade to action will see your post as a suggesting that Revkin should not criticize Gore’s strategy of focusing on crisis and catastrophe supported by the occasional inaccuracies on those occasions when Gore does bumble into inaccuracy.
If people believe climate activists as suggesting self-censorship on the topic of Gore’s short comings, how can they retain the ability to persuade people of the need for action? I think you can’t. But if you think it’s possible, please explain.
How could Revkin retain this ability if he indulged your misguided anger by muzzling himself when covering Gore’s efforts on climate change? I think he couldn’t. I think he knows that.
I think in his article, Revkin said what he means. I think he will continue to do so. I’ll continue to think Revkin said, and will continue to say, what he means until Revkin tells us he did not believe what he wrote.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:58 pm
-41-Nosmo
We strive for accuracy around here, so if you see something amiss, point it out. The more specific the better.
On this thread Michael Tobis has been a participant, so if he thinks that his words have been misrepresented in some way he can not only say so, but also set the record straight. Unlike some other blogs we welcome the participation of people with diverse points of view — even if (no, especially if) they happen to disagree.
Echo chamber blogs take less work and trust among participants, that is for sure. Thanks for your comments.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:33 pm
As many have pointed out, there is no real connection, moral or otherwise, to what a columnist writes today and the number of people who die from some distant weather event or climate pattern. Even when there is a direct connection between a policy and unintended deaths, like in the case of DDT, one can hardly hold a columnist responsible for those deaths, even if he was all for the restriction of DDT. There were countless other factors that went into making that policy a reality, and countless other reasons why malaria is so prevalent in some places of the world. If you hold the columnist responsible for his very small part, you may have to include tens of thousands of others equally culpable.
What troubles me so much is that Mr. Tobis makes such a linear argument where no such linearity exists. This seems to be endemic in the AGW science community. Any increase in CO2 is linearly tied to a proportional increase in species extinction, sea level rise, severe weather deaths, heat related deaths, the spread of disease and so on, totally ignoring the complexity of the biosphere. Consequently, almost all of these predictions are useless from the start!
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Well, Roger, you certainly successfully demonstrated how my words could be used against me.
You win that one. I do wish your proof had been a tad more hypothetical.
At this point my words are being widely redistributed, misquoted and misconstrued. On those grounds alone I wish I had never said them.
The language I used to explain why Revkin’s article was unethical has been demonstrated to be easy to distort and hard to understand. It was a serious tactical error on my part.
QED. Well done.
In closing, let me clearly state that in spite of what hundreds of people who before today had never heard of me apparently believe about me, I do not now suggest and never have suggested that Al Gore or anyone is above criticism, and I don’t believe that finding fault with him is tantamount to murder.
Thanks ever so much for the interesting object lesson.
March 4th, 2009 at 1:20 am
The issue that got Tobis mad was that Revkin implicated that Al Gore (who gets the big picture more or less right) and George Will (who doesn’t get the big picture right at all) are on equal footing in the media-debate.
He never suggested that Gore should not be criticized, so characterizing him as a follower of the church of Al Gore (as Keith Kloor did) is incorrect and not helpful for the debate (to the contrary).
One could argue that Tobis (and Romm) used too strong language in their anger, but the same could be said of Pielke in his characterization of Al Gore (at least when one recognizes the importance of the big picture).
This whole argument seems focussed too much on the use of language, and too little on the substance.
Bart
March 4th, 2009 at 3:58 am
There’s really no comparison between Will and Gore in terms of influence on public and policymakers – Will is a newspaper columnist and we all know who and what Gore is. As for the big picture – we have a naturally variable climate, the variability of which hasn’t been exceeded despite man-made CO2.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:21 am
Dr Tobis,
You said:-
“Well, Roger, you certainly successfully demonstrated how my words
could be used against me. ”
Well, you are a well educated man and a scientist who presumably knows the value and the power of words. I would think that you might consider deeply what you write. I note that you don’t deny that they were your words.
You said:-
“I said it was evil to publicly imply an equivalence of the value of the
opinions of Gore and Will, presuming one actually believed otherwise.”
I presume that this is the statement, which you believe you have been misrepresented about:-
“I don’t think his dragging Gore into Will’s muck was a
minor transgression of a fine point of propriety. I think it
was palpably evil.”
What position do you hold, exactly? Do you encourage your employees, students, children, etc. to speak of others in this kind of language? Or do you reserve it for special kinds of “muck-grubbers” like Will?
Roger hasn’t used your words against you, Dr Tobis. You’ve used the words and you stand, condemned or otherwise (and for decades hence) by them.
Perhaps next time, you might use them in politely-green company, rather than publise them for all the world to see that side of you.
March 4th, 2009 at 5:42 am
Oops, sorry, Mr Tobis. I endowed you with “Dr” status inadvertently. Apologies, I was reading another site more or less simultaneously.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:13 am
-46-Bart
“the same could be said of Pielke in his characterization of Al Gore”
I’d welcome a pointer to what specific language was too strong, and a suggestion for how you would have phrased it.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:58 am
SNIP
Please focus on arguments being made not the people making them. Thanks.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:29 am
Michael – …’demonstrated how my words could be used against me. … my words are being widely redistributed, misquoted and misconstrued.’
It is a little rich to blame others for misconstruing your words, when they happened to be words such as ‘unspeakably evil’. (In my view, anyone who uses the term ‘evil’ isn’t capable of making a sound ethical argument, and ‘unspeakably evil’ even less so.)
If I may say so, your reluctance to take responsibility for your failure to coherently ‘explain why Revkin’s article was unethical’ and what appears to be an inability to reflect upon this failure is consistent with what many people object to about the environmentalists’ treatment of the debate. ‘Ethical’ arguments – such as Gore’s – are frequently premised on the prospect of catastrophe falling upon billions of people. Yet to interrogate these claims is itself ‘unethical’ or ‘unspeakably evil’ because the consequence of making the counter-argument is held to be equivalent to encouraging the consequence (catastrophe) that the original argument intended to move us to avoid. This defeats ethics in practice. The mere possibility of a consequence generates the moral imperative, and renders ethics redundant. In this sense, such arguments are themselves necessarily unethical.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:53 am
As to the equivalence of George Will and Al Gore…
Mr. Will only made two observations in his column. The first pointed out what the mainstream media was saying about climate in the 1970s. This upset many AGW folks because they thought that Mr. Will was saying that the majority of scientists in the 1970s believed we were headed for global cooling. Will never says this. He simply quotes the mainstream media saying it 30 years ago. I took his point to be that we can not trust the mainstream media when it talks about scientific consensus. The media will always hype the potential disaster, including the current global warming scare.
His second point was about sea ice extent being about the same today as it was 29-30 years ago. It turns out that this is true. The complaints have been that the truth here is misleading. The simple fact doesn’t tell the whole story of the dramatic changes in the Arctic, the thinning of the ice, the difference between the two poles and so on.
So Wills’ crime is selectively picking data that supports his own beliefs while not including ALL the data that would muddy his argument.
Now let’s compare this to Al Gore and a little of his speech before the AAAS. RP jr. has already covered the inappropriate use of disaster statistics to promote an AGW crisis, so I won’t go over that again. The first thing he says about climate and energy is that renewables are ‘free’ and fossil fuels are expensive and dirty. Well, Mother Nature doesn’t charge us for either, so, in a sense, they are both ‘free’. What costs money is the conversion of both resources into useable energy, and fossil fuels are still much cheaper and more efficient at doing that. Mr. Gore must know this, so I can only conclude that he started off his speech with a lie.
Then he argues that the only difference between Venus and the Earth is that Earth developed life, which sequestered CO2 into the crust, allowing Earth to cool to a ‘livable’ temperature. The argument, aside from being ‘chicken and the egg’ nonsense, only touches on a fraction of the difference between Earth and Venus. George Will may not have covered every caveat of sea ice extent in his column, but that is nothing compared to Gore’s Earth/Venus equivalence argument!
He also shows a picture of the Earth from space and points out that the atmosphere, compared to the size of the Earth, is thin and therefore fragile! This ’selective relativism’ is an emotional trigger, and has nothing to do with climate change science. It actually works against a real understanding of climate change by couching the scientific arguments in an unrealistic, emotional context.
I could go on and on, but I hope this is enough evidence to support my point, which is that suggesting equivalence between George Will and Al Gore on the science of climate change, is very insulting to George Will.
March 4th, 2009 at 10:13 am
[...] could get so angry about people criticizing a politician? Here is an amazing exchange seen on Prometheus. Some highlights and excerpts [...]
March 4th, 2009 at 10:34 am
On the 21st of January INTELLIGENCE SQUARED U.S. had a panel discussion on the question: “Is Reducing Carbon Emissions Worth The Cost?” The audio of the debate can be heard on http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97998613 but this Saturday and Sunday (7/8 March) the debate will be broadcast on BBCworld. Prof Stott and Bjorn Lomborg will be participating
March 4th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Michael,
Others have already responded to your clear statement that you think those who “actually believe that Gore is more credible than Will and make statements to the contrary are behaving unethically” to the extent that it is “morally comparable to killing 1,000 people …” and such a statement is not “obviously false.”
Two thoughts:
1) You make such a statement, which is neither obviously true nor obviously false, and expect it to slide by unnoticed. Sorry, no pass. It is the same as statements some make about Hitler, etc. Extreme statements like that may not be “obviously” false, but they generate a reaction in the reader: a reaction you obviously intended to create. If you don’t intend to convey such an emotion, then don’t make the statement.
It is obviously true you felt, and intended to convey, that attitude. Otherwise, you owe an apology to both Revkin and Will.
2) On moral equivalence. You assigned life-and-death risk equivalence to public arguments of visible opinion leaders. This is itself a very risky avenue of analysis, fraught with great danger. The “CI” so to speak of such an analysis is incredibly large. One could equally suggest that the same statements might save 20,000 lives from certain death. An analysis that is “not obviously false.”
Example: the vast majority of human quality-of-life funding goes to support Western nations, while only a tiny fraction supports the huge and much greater need in the developing world. Should we then argue that thousands are dying around the world because we spend millions on advertising for mortgage relief, or for CFL bulbs, or for recycling? Of course not. My point: be careful with your analogies.
March 4th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Roger, Michael and others:
Allow me to note that, with all of the focus on the science, no one seems to have noted that George Will`s initial essay is absolutely wrong on his economics:
Will has smugly trotted out – and completely misunderstood the implications of – the famous bet between Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon in 1980.
Erhlich lost the bet, and badly, to Simon when prices of a range of commodities fell, because of market forces and incentives (pricing signals) and institutions (property rights) that encouraged and enabled investors to bring more supplies to markets (and also encouraged users to lower their own demands).
But no such market forces, pricing signals or property rights exist with respect to the global atmosphere (or for other problems that concern the so-called “Malthusians”).
The reason why there is a problem and why people are concerned about it is precisely because it is one that markets are NOT working and can’t self-evidently cure on their own. While the science can be debated, the absence of effective market mechanisms relating to the atmosphere cannot be denied.
Supposed “free market” talking heads like George Will ought to read up on their economic fundamentals, particularly when they completely belie the point he is trying to make.
And perhaps climate scientists and journalists like Revkin might want to consider not merely the science, but also markets and institutions. It is, after all, precisely on such matters that policy makers presume to act.
More here: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/02/18/poor-thing-why-george-will-won-t-be-consistent-on-climate-change.aspx
March 4th, 2009 at 11:35 am
#52
“It is a little rich to blame others for misconstruing your words, when they happened to be words such as ‘unspeakably evil’. (In my view, anyone who uses the term ‘evil’ isn’t capable of making a sound ethical argument, and ‘unspeakably evil’ even less so.)”
Well, I suppose it is better to be misconstrued than misquoted. I never said “unspeakably”, I said “palpably”, meaning “literally and demonstrably”.
Now if you can’t use “evil” in an ethical argument, what exactly is ethics about?
March 4th, 2009 at 11:52 am
michael_tobis Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
“Where the ethical question comes in is when one acts in a way that is not in accord with one’s beliefs, especially if one is in a position of influence.”
It all depends how ethical one’s beliefs are. If the beliefs are unethical (you only have to open the OT or the Koran or Mein Kampf for a few examples) the morally right thing to do is not to act in accord with those beliefs. I am not suggesting that Revkins beliefs are unethical but if I would use your reasoning I could argue that Revkins beliefs are indeed unethical because he may be morally responsible for the diversion of money that could be used for poverty reduction. The very valid point Paul Biggs #7 made earlier.
PS. Roger, you can snip my comment if it is considered offensive (to some) or off topic
March 4th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
#56
1) You make such a statement, which is neither obviously true nor obviously false, and expect it to slide by unnoticed. Sorry, no pass.
I expected it to be noticed and I wanted it to be discussed rationally.
I didn’t expect it to be yanked out of context in Prometheus, then spread far and wide by political operatives.
Roger said it was a weapon for my enemies. I asked him to prove it. He did, but only by removing the context. Even so, what I said, while (it turns out) excessively provocative, is stated sufficiently tentatively that it isn’t irrational. On the other hand, it sounds hellish the way it’s being played.
I guess it was a lousy tactic, and as such I regret it. Roger’s point is proven, but at more expense to me than I would have preferred.
2) One could equally suggest that the same statements might save 20,000 lives from certain death. An analysis that is “not obviously false.”
Indeed. One could well do so (well, eliding “certain” anyway) if one believed so. No argument there. (In fact, people do exactly that all the time, with no serious ensuing blogstorm. I guess this is because there are different rules of conduct for market conservatives.)
My argument starts with what I believe Revkin believes. He could easily contradict me if he wants to shut me up. Failing that, this is a failure of courage on his part, and one that matters.
I believe the US press is being cowardly and that this is a particularly egregious and harmful example. And yes, if I have it right, unethical. This presumes certain things about the factual evidence that many readers here would disagree with, so those of you in that category weren’t really the intended audience, but I should have taken more care.
I might have explained it better, leaving less room for this personal misfortune that I am suddenly faced with. I was too casual about the nature of the conversation. I didn’t expect an active effort to portray me as saying things far more extreme than I said or meant to say.
March 4th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Michael_Tobis
It appears that you believe global warming will cause increasing deaths, and that challenging advocates of controlling global warming is wrong.
May I challenge you to examine and disprove the converse proposition
that global warming will reduce the relative death rates.
Consider:
Increasing death rates caused by efforts to reduce global warming.
1) Temperature and Fatalities
Evidence: More deaths are caused by cold weather than by hot weather.
Application: Adding CO2 to raise global temperatures will reduce weather related deaths.
2) CO2 and Food
Evidence: Global population is increasing.
More food will be required to feed the global population.
More people die from famines than from excess food.
NASA reports primary productivity has increased with increasing CO2.
Application: Adding CO2 to the atmosphere has and will increase food productivity and reduce the number of deaths from famine.
3) Fossil Fuel & Income
Evidence: Families with little work have insufficient income to purchase food resulting in increased deaths from malnutrition and famine.
Use of fossil fuels has strongly increased economic output and incomes.
Consumption of fossil fuels below the population growth rate will reduce global economies unless replaced by less expensive renewable fuels.
Application: The effort by global warming alarmists to reduce CO2 emissions will result in millions of more deaths from cold and from famine than would occur by adding CO2 from consuming fossil fuels.
4) Peak Oil will impact Transport Fuel & Income
US petroleum production peaked in 1971.
Non-OPEC petroleum production peaked in 2004.
There is growing evidence global petroleum production will not be able to keep up with population and economic growth in the near future.
There is growing evidence peaking of conventional global petroleum production will occur within the next two decades if not within the next decade.
Reduction of transport fuels will directly reduce global economy until alternative fuels are developed.
Reduction of economic output will most strongly impact the poor.
This will cause rapidly increasing deaths, as happened in North Korea.
Focusing on Climate change and global warming is diverting funds from the critical effort needed to develop alternative fuels.
Focusing on controlling global warming will cause millions of deaths from famine caused by strong economic downturn for lack of alternative fuels.
Your challenge, should you be brave and ethical enough to accept it, is to locate quantitative data and apply statistical methods to quantify these trends and disprove this proposition.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
[...] of Republicans about the politicization of science, written for the Cato Institute, and whose attacks on climate scientists have been repeatedly cited by Marc Morano’s right-wing climate denial [...]
March 8th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
[...] morning. At 7:34 am Tuesday March 3, Pielke himself uses the crutch of Keith Kloor’s post to lay into Tobis with the much more specific misrepresentation that the 1000-deaths comparison was directly to [...]