Is the planet warming significantly due to human activities, and if so how much can it be expected to warm in the coming century? Frankly, I have no idea. Understanding the climate is a fantastically complicated problem, about which I know only as much as the average scientist, which is to say: not very much. To have a really educated opinion on the subject one must either be a climatologist or have studied climatology in some depth. Therefore, I have to rely to a large extent on people more knowledgeable than myself whose judgment I trust. And here lies the problem. I am not sure who can be trusted on this subject.
I began to have serious concerns about the consensus view of global warming some years ago, after attending a scientific lecture on the subject by Prof. Richard Lindzen of MIT, one of the leading climatologists in the world. He did not claim that there isn’t anthropogenic global warming going on; he merely said that there was insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions on the subject. He began his lecture by assuring the audience of scientists that nothing of a scientific nature that he would assert in his talk was controversial among the small community of real experts who are involved in global climate research. I asked him in private why, if this was so, one got the impression of a rather solid consensus in the scientific community that we were facing a crisis; and he explained to me some of the sociology involved. I was left with a very favorable impression of the man. He knew his stuff, and it was obvious to me that he had no axes to grind, but was driven a simple passion for scientific truth.
Since then my doubts on the subject have been increased by statements I have heard from some scientists that “the debate is over.” How can it be over in a field that is so complex and still in its infancy, comparatively speaking. Don’t the people who say this realize that scientific conclusions are trustworthy precisely because they are based on vigorous debate?
Just last week I heard a respected astrophysicist say to an audience of two hundred scientific laypeople, “Anyone who doubts that human beings are causing global warming and that it will have catastrophic consequences over the next century if we do nothing about it, is either stupid or ill-informed.” I am sure many in the audience were impressed; I was not. Lindzen is not at all stupid, and he is much better informed on this subject than the astrophysicist who made this bold claim. Physicists of the caliber of Will Happer of Princeton University and Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study have spoken out recently to express doubts about the solidity and genuineness of the scientific consensus on the subject. They also are not “stupid or ill-informed”.
My doubts have grown in proportion to the number of apodictic assertions I have heard that there is no room for doubt. And now I have come across a document written by Richard Lindzen that has turned my doubts into serious alarm. Not alarm over the state of the globe, but alarm over the state of science right now on this issue. I recommend that everyone who cares about science read this document. It is an eye-opener. The behavior of some global warming advocates in the scientific community is truly Orwellian.
And this morning, I read the statement of that noted physicist Paul Krugman proclaiming that to doubt the global warming peril is “treason against the planet.” One can hear the rumbling of the tumbrels, the crash of the guillotine, and the roar of the crowd in the background. Treason Against the Planet! Set up a Committee of Planetary Safety! What the hell, if I may ask, does Krugman know about it? Is he calling Lindzen, Happer, and Dyson traitors against the planet? Yes, in effect, he is. And that is truly disgusting.
None of this is to say that there might not be a serious problem with anthropogenic global warming. There very well might be. That is certainly something to be seriously worried about. But the skeptics include men of formidable scientific intellect who have serious and respectable arguments. Science does not need groupthink and ideological fervor. It does not need shouting down and cries of “Traitor!” It does not need the kind of thuggishness and unscrupulous dealing that Lindzen reports on in disturbing detail. Ultimately, science will find the truth. It always does in the long run. But it will do so more quickly if scientists think and act like scientists rather than Planetary Saviors.
June 29th, 2009 | 12:49 pm
“…noted physicist Paul Krugman…”
Krugman is an economist.
June 29th, 2009 | 1:15 pm
Dear Gary: I was employing sarcasm.
June 29th, 2009 | 1:34 pm
You’re definitely right about the damage this is doing to the disciplines of science. The fallout won’t be restricted to climatology–nor should it, judging from the backgrounds of AGW’s most fervent supporters.
I doubt the “righteous fervor” will be abated by the quieter, more thoughtful voices.
June 29th, 2009 | 2:02 pm
“I was employing sarcasm.”
And I tripped right over it. Sorry!
June 29th, 2009 | 2:23 pm
I just do not give a damn about Anthropocentric Global Warming.
Now, I do not count myself among the AGW “deniers”, as I have neither the scientific background nor judgment to sift through the arguments of climatologists, researchers, and politicians in regards to what degree of a threat AGW is, if any. However, that the primary evidence cited in favor of Anthropocentric Global Warming (AGW) continues to be computer models raises this software engineer’s eyebrow. You will struggle to find a group of people less likely to be swayed by computer models than software engineers. Computer models are just too easy to manipulate, and designing a completely thorough and completely reliable one is something that is rarely possible without some form of desired outcome in mind. Still, arguing about the reliability of this specific model or that specific model is something I will happily leave to others, as for even a nerd like me, incessant talk of algorithms and variables makes my head hurt.
However, while I can foresee no certainty coming from computer models, I can say with certainty that the proposed “remedy” for this supposed oncoming catastrophe looks awfully damn familiar: the same tax-heavy, government-involvement-and-spending-heavy, regulation-heavy, environmentally-puritanical, economically-crushing, and, yes, socialistic measures that were the proposed “cure” for the (supposedly) eminent “population bomb” and the coming “ice age” touted in the ’70s. Adding to the sense of deja vu is that the proposing is largely being done by the same type of people then as now. Neither the “ice age” or “population bomb” came remotely close to being realized, and now the same socialistic measures are being proposed to address AGW. And just like with those eminent threats from the latter days of bell-bottoms, we are being told that not only must the US and world adopt their “solution”, we must do it RIGHT NOW OR ELSE, because there is NO TIME TO DEBATE ABOUT IT. I would be thought a fool if I were to be taken in by such tactics from a car salesman, but I should heed to them when considering adopting massive socialistic economic and environmental policies? Why should anyone be cowed by admonitions for adopting radical measures made in such a fashion? Oh, because they say their data “overwhelmingly” supports it. Right. The data largely extrapolated from computer models. Round and round we go.
All that being said, however, I still can’t even claim to be a skeptic, as though the question as to what degree of a threat AGW is, if any, had any importance to me, and I was simply withholding judgment. No, I simply do not care. I do not care because I do not believe that the “concern” over AGW has anything whatsoever to do with concern for the environment or humanity. The AGW debate is, at bottom, a political debate between those who wish to implement their vision of a socialistic utopia and those who are not so keen on the idea. If AGW is a real threat, the “remedy” proposed by the AGW crowd will have longer-lasting and more damaging effects than the problem, as socialistic government policy has never failed to take a bad situation and make it exponentially worse. However, proving AGW is not a threat will not offer a reprieve from those wishing to impose these socialistic measures. If AGW is not a real threat, the present-day AGW alarmists will no doubt move on to the next “problem” that they insist requires immediate adoption of their “solution”. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Regardless of whatever the supposed “threat” in whose name the call for implementation of socialistic measures is being made, I will continue to oppose, with great fervor, the implementation of said socialistic measures. Therefore, whether AGW is real or not is entirely besides the point.
June 29th, 2009 | 9:48 pm
Can anyone give me a convincing rationale behind the cap and trade bill? Unless the claimed effects of carbon emissions approach Gore’s apocalyptic extremes, why are so many so blasé about this job and economy killer? New green jobs will never replace in number or remuneration the brown jobs this bill if enacted will destroy. Not only will the traditional energy sector suffer, but those directly and indirectly dependent upon it (the entire economy that is), but most especially industry, manufacture, what’s left of the car industry, and agriculture. In fact, it is as its critics claim, a massive regressive tax on the entire population. Energy costs, as we all know, are passed on to the consumer. In the offing are higher gasoline prices, home heating prices, and as Obama himself has said, “skyrocketing electric bills”. Plus, of course, higher food prices. Again, absent Apocalypse soon, why are so many so complacent about the prospect? Last year’s high gas prices had a powerful and rippling effect on our economy. This bill will artificially raise prices not only for gasoline but for almost the entirety of our energy supply system. Why is this a good thing, why is it desirable? Paul Krugman says that various cap and trade cost estimates ranging from $1500-$3000 a year per family over the next 30 years or so are gross overstatements and that the cost will be a mere 10 to $.15 a day per individual. He then goes on to say that the incentives built into Cap and Trade will actually help the US economy by incentivizing innovation and new technologies (without giving any specifics ) a statement however, which is contradicted by his preferred estimation of the bills costs. In order for the bill to achieve its ends, that is to speed the transition to renewable’s it must dis incentivize fossil fuels. And how pray tell, would Krugman’s nickel and dime a day achieve that end? Actually, it can’t. The only way Cap and Trade can work is by imposing the very high cost Krugman pooh-pooh’s.
And that speaks to only the economic component. The turn to renewables, at a scientific level can only work if the renewable sources of energy are up to the task of supplying our nations enormous energy, needs. And they are not. Coal to the Green Mind is black evil incarnate, petroleum and even natural gas are are it’s near cousins, and nuclear even as the rest of the world turns to it is forever off the table. Leaving us with what? As if the ethanol debacle hasn’t taught us an important lesson, we are now supposed to exploit even less promising less efficient forms of bio fuel. The problem with bio fuel is its low energy density. Nuclear is highest in this regard, a mere nugget can light a city. Petroleum and coal and natural gas can’t match nuclear, but are vastly more energy dense than the fuels that preceded them and have provided the basis for the world’s economic growth for two centuries. Biomass, by far has the lowest energy density Enormous amounts of energy and other resources such as water are required to convert it into usable form. More energy in fact, is expended in this conversion process than is contained in the final product. Excuse me for pointing out that this is utterly irrational.(An interesting thing to consider is that wood burning is less efficient than coal burning. Before the ascendancy of coal, the Midwest was virtually denuded of trees because they were needed for energy. With coal came the take off of the Industrial Revolution, and incidentally, the reforestation of our country. Again, I wonder why we are supposed to go backwards.)
And the sources more central to the alternative vision, solar and wind, even highly subsidized are utterly inadequate to our needs. Most obviously, because they are dependent on the weather, they are by nature, intermittent. No sunshine, no wind, no energy. If this virtually sunless, windless north eastern June, doesn’t give one pause, dampen one’s enthusiasm about the current capacities of wind and solar and even its near to midterm potential, I don’t know what will.(Hmm, speaking of dampen, maybe we could harness the power of rain?). Currently these most favored alternatives form only a minute portion of energy production (1%) a number so small that even doubling their output, and in a society with no growth in energy demand, they would still provide in 30 years only 8% of our needs. … Higher prices, less wealth, higher unemployment and inflation. Again, why should we support this?
PS: even if an American Cap and Trade system or to make a significant dent in global warming, which it won’t, how are we and what right have we to inhibit the burgeoning economies of China, India and Brazil, as they lift themselves from their ancient poverty using the most plentiful and efficient energy resources available? China, for instance, has already passed us in carbon emissions and its rate of such omissions is growing six times faster than ours. Gore’s program therefore is a nonstarter, and will only promote and speed the transfer of American jobs, traditional blue-collar union jobs abroad. It seems everything can be sacrificed for the “Planet” even strictures against outsourcing… and why are we supposed to be for that?…
I’ve followed this issue fairly closely, and I’ve noticed more than a fair amount of class and culture condescension from the greens towards the blue collars. The new Progressive Coalition, information age Greenies, and “people of color”, Black’s and Hispanics that is removed from their social, economic situation, from the working class that is, united against culturally conservative working-class whites. That is the modern progressive labor movement. Will this unstable coalition hold even if the green paradigm stifles economic growth as it certainly will? Time will tell.
Here’s another conundrum for the anti-fossilites. If the ultimate goal is the elimination or near elimination of fossil fuels, and the ultimate way of powering transportation, mass and vehicular, necessarily therefore is electricity, where is that vastly greater supply of electricity to come from? If we can’t burn natural gas and coal, and we can’t use nuclear, from where are we to get the energy to power the new electrified transportation system? One of the problems so far with electric cars is the need for frequent battery recharges, which take several hours to complete. An Israeli guy named Agassi has come up with an ingenious solution. Instead of recharging the battery, you go instead to what you might call a battery station and replace yor depleted battery with a freshly charged one. He’s perfected this relatively simple technique to the point where a battery change will take no longer than filling up at the local gas station. But a major and self imposed problem with his overall plan is that he stipulates that the power stations, which supply the electricity needed to charge the batteries also be clean of the CO 2 “pollutant.” Presently that would limit his power distribution system to some hydroelectric proximate locales such as Niagara Falls, or those fed by Hoover Dam, a limitation which despite it’s green provenance underscores how dependent we are on fossils and nuclear. Now that restriction, drastically limits the supply of electricity , and if you consider the additional fact that electric power usually comes from a number of sources and not from one plant, finding even a few 100% carbon free sources is near impossible … Before he began this venture, Agassi was already an entrepreneurial whiz kid, so I’m assuming he didn’t suddenly get stupid. In other words, his otherwise self defeating purism is most likely an advertising ploy. ” Agassi Electric, Purer than thou, purer than the driven $now.”
June 30th, 2009 | 8:04 am
Echoes of history, “The debate is over. Anyone who thinks that the earth is not the center of the universe is either stupid or ill informed”. For science to be science, the debate must never be over, even if that means that “obviously false” ideas like “perpetual motion”, “poly water”, and “N Rays” are entertained. The reason is simple. Every once and a while, some “obviously wrong” ideas like “Big Bang” (How could the universe not be eternal? “There must be a natural explanation”) are proven correct.
June 30th, 2009 | 1:32 pm
[...] change (whatever weather-related news is being called these days), I would largely agree with the following: Is the planet warming significantly due to human activities, and if so how much can it be expected [...]
July 1st, 2009 | 1:12 pm
[...] an earlier blog post on global warming, I mentioned Prof. Will Happer of Princeton. I just read the testimony that Will Happer gave to the [...]
July 3rd, 2009 | 5:10 pm
Great information! How do I put your link on my Face Book for my friends to see? I love it when people actually think. Thanks.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact