Senator Inhofe speech - classic climate denier nonsense 19 January 05

DANGEROUS IDEAS!

Thanks to a link that Lynn provided (see my blog of 17 December 2004), it seems clear that Michael Crichton has been influenced by Bjorn Lomborg – and these ideas are making their way to the most powerful government in the world. I have included relevant sections at the end of this blog.

More and more I am persuaded that “ideas” are an extremely important influence in the modern world. Mark, your intended book on Global Warming could be extremely important in influencing decisions in a way that is counter to the arguments that Lomborg is making. Please let me know if I can help at all.

As food for thought:

Case 1. In 1904, Halford McKinder presented a paper at the RGS (Royal Geographical Society) called “The Geographical Pivot of History”. This was then hugely influencial in the direction of British, then American (imperialistic) foreign policy – arguably through to the current Iraq situation. See the most recent version of the RGS Journal which is dedicated to this.

Case 2. Will Hutton argues that the current neo-cons in the US draw a great deal of their strength from right-wing intellectuals of the 1960s and 1970s – see “The World We Are In”.

What ideas can we come up with helps the world deal with Global Warming in the environmental way that is required?

Yours,

Peter

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

Aliens Cause Global Warming

A lecture by Michael Crichton Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003

... “In recent years, much has been said about the post modernist claims about science to the effect that science is just another form of raw power, tricked out in special claims for truth-seeking and objectivity that really have no basis in fact. Science, we are told, is no better than any other undertaking. These ideas anger many scientists, and they anger me. But recent events have made me wonder if they are correct. We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist.

The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever “published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review.” )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?

Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was “rife with careless mistakes.” It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocust denier. The issue was captioned: “Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist.” Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?

When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn’t enough, he put the critics’ essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.

Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That’s why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That’s why the facts don’t matter. That’s why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He’s a heretic.

Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I’d see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.

Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggresively separate science from policy. The late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that “Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference-science and the nation will suffer.” Personally, I don’t worry about the nation. But I do worry about science.

Thank you very much.”

Peter,Thanks for your post.

Michael Crichton seems to be a very good writer. However, so what! It does not mean he is correct.

My 87 year old Mother and I were at book store for some books she wanted to buy. I saw Bjorn Lomborg’s book Global Crises Global Solutions prominently displayed with other nonfiction books in a special area of the Borders bookstore.

I have one quote from a dear friend from many years ago I would like to share: “Bad things happen when good people do nothing”

Doing nothing is not an option for us anymore. It never was but the stakes are getting higher.

Yes, you have my full support in the power of ideas in our world. I often have articulated about this. I understand the concept quite well. It is the only thing we have that is powerful enough to meet the challenge of preventing climate change! Ideas!

Good ideas require a positive state of mind and a faith and confidence in ourselves to do what we may initially think is impossible to achieve. There is no such word impossible when we have that proper state of mind. Along with that is the word desire. We have to be passionately engaged. Emotions rule over intellect. We have a vision and never loose site of that vision and seek to attain that vision the best way we can.

I have tried to do that using the words Climate Change Prevention. Those three words state a vision of focus. Mitigate was too weak a word. The key word here is prevention!

I need a rest. I will come back at a later time and think about your questions more. I want to get back to a preventative focus. The climate science debate is not as important as to what are we going to do about it!

Take Care, Dan

once life on earth is nearly extinct. I know this Venus effect scenario is an outside possibility, but it is a possibility. They are worried about SCIENCE. What about LIFE?

If Crighton & Bjorn are right & we are wrong, then they can throw pies at us (make mine banana creme); and if people follow our lead and reduce their GH emissions, then they can thank us for helping them save money and help the economy. If, on the other hand, we are right and Crighton & Bjorn are wrong, and people listen to them & do nothing, I’m afraid the harms would be tremendously greater…..

Some statistician, Bjorn. He should read Pascal, the father of statistics more closely.

In my opinion, you are absolutely right to keep banging on about risk, Lynn.

My mind keeps coming back to this fundamental series of points:

1) We are making some big changes to our planet; including our atmosphere.

2) Many think that there is a chance that it will affect our climate.

3) I can understand that there may be a group of people who think that it will not have an impact on our climate.

4) What I really cannot understand is how people can be so certain that we are not at risk from Climate Change that they advocate that we do not take it into account in our activities. (Yet this seems to be the view which is influencial with the US government.)

Let’s think about this issue as Pascal would have done!

PS. A good read about risk (and Pascal) is Bernstein’s – Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk

I agree. Some people, maybe most, do not value this kind of truth. A lot of people seem to operate more along the lines of “THEY want me to give up my big SUV and drive my kids around in a YUGO!!?? I don’t think so!!!”

Maybe I should have put think in quotes.

Please ignore the first attemtp to post this message. Clearly I pushed the wrong button. The real message follows.

Mark,

Invective does not become you. Comments like, “a spectacularly imbecilic speech”, serve only to polarize the audience. They accomplish nothing constructive.

Whenever I read a comment such as the one you made in your response to Senator Inhofe’s speech – “No mention of course of the hundreds of thousands of dollars Inhofe has received in contributions from the oil and gas industries over the years”, my consideration turns to evaluation of the person who made the statement.

I have a copy of Crichton’s novel and believe that he has done a respectable job of exploring some of the legitimate issues in the debate using information that one cannot get from the popular media or from “The Day After Tomorrow”. I have not read the novel part yet, but I have reviewed the footnotes and appendices.

Inhofe’s opinion about global warming differs from your opinion. That does not make him an imbecile, nor does it make you a genius. It only means that there is a difference of opinion.

I believe that I would not sell out civilization for a few Roman shekels and I believe that few others would. I believe that the persons who make such accusations think that others are capable of such culpable behavior only because when they look inward they see a person who might behave that way.

It makes more sense to acknowledge that the oil and gas industry has an opinion and a vested interest in the outcome. Perhaps they, being rational persons, seek elected officials whose beliefs match their own. Why would British Petroleum wish to contribute to Ted Kennedy’s campaign? It would make no sense at all.

When was the GW/CC debate ever RATIONAL?? Those who know it’s real know what’s at stake here—they can only be rational about that to a point! For the skeptics, there’s too much at stake should the majority of people start believing the truth! (Loss of reputation? Grant money? Bribes? Pride?)

So watch the “rational” side of things to nearly disintegrate over the next 10 years or so. By then, NOBODY is going to be “rational” anymore…and that’s when the doodoo really hits the fan!

Of course, I see it clearly now.

The folks who agree with you have nothing at stake should the majority of people begin believing the other (clearly counterfeit) version of the truth (Loss of reputation? Grant money? Bribes? Pride?).

God must be on your side.

Norbertzangox (why still no real name? Everyone else here engages in debate without hiding behind anonymity), I find your dismissal of moneyed interests in politics bizarre. Aren’t bribes and corruption supposed to be a bad thing in a democracy? You seem to suggest that anyone who opposes political corruption is necessarily corrupt – another of those inversions of reality in which you seem to specialise.

On a wider point, why should I not use invective to criticise Inhofe’s speech? It made me angry – not just because of his abuse of science, but because of the values that he betrayed: values which by dismissing environmental concerns thereby dismiss the right of our children (my child) to live on a healthy planet. This is at heart a political dispute, not a technical one. I don’t believe any constructive engagement is likely or productive with the likes of Inhofe or his followers: we must fight them on a political level, and – for the good of future human generations and wider life on earth – we must win.

Whoa! I did not suggest that anyone who opposes political corruption is necessarily corrupt. What I wrote was, “I believe that the persons who make such accusations think that others are capable of such culpable behavior only because when they look inward they see a person who might behave that way.” That means that persons who see that they might be corruptible under some circumstances are more likely to accuse others of being corrupt. I also believe that such persons are more likely to cry “corruption” when a politician disagrees with them.

I did not invert reality, I merely described an observation.

You have no basis upon which to build a case that Senator Inhofe has sold his discretion. If the Senator was a private individual, he would have grounds to sue you for libel.

Two. Participation of moneyed interests in politics is not the same thing as bribery and corruption. As a group, corporations contribute more money to the conservative politicians whom they believe to be more likely to support their interests. As a group labor unions and activist groups contribute more money to left wing politicians whom they believe to be more likely to support their interests. There is nothing inherently wrong in any of this.

Bribery and corruption exists when a person in a position of power who has discretion agrees to sell some of that discretion to the highest bidder. I believe that a great number of third world countries accept that behavior and I believe that it is inimical to good government and successful societies.

Three. My original note said that I believe that invective is an ineffective means of winning an argument and that it polarizes audiences. I also believe that the person who retreats into ad hominem attacks has run out of credible evidence and has lost the argument. I believe it best to wait until after the anger subsides before responding. Count to 10 if you will.

Four. You could only have written, “not just because of his abuse of science, but because of the values that he betrayed: values which by dismissing environmental concerns thereby dismiss the right of our children (my child) to live on a healthy planet” if you believe that all of your beliefs about matters environmental are correct. You cannot claim that your mind is open to discussion.

Five. I realize that there are many persons, some of them scientists, who believe that the IPCC has proven their hypothesis, that proof of the culpability of carbon dioxide exists. I also realize that there is large group of scientists and engineers who believe that much proving remains; 17,000 of them signed the Oregon Petition (including me) in 1998.

I also realize that many persons, you, Al Gore and others would like to turn this debate into a political struggle; a struggle that you believe you can win. In spite of your honest and heart felt believe that carbon dioxide is causing the climate to change, you cannot prove that it is true. It is just a belief. There are too many flaws in the IPCC hypothesis and too much data that confute it.

Your closing line makes you sound like a Crusader off to re-take the holy land. The problem is that if the IPCC hypothesis is wrong, then your proposed solution will be worse than impotent; it will devastate much of the ability that we have to adapt to the changing climate. That would truly be damaging to future generations and to life in general.

Wish I could cut to the chase as you do and use less verbage!

As always, you are right on target! Nice to see you back on the blog!

Norbertzangox,

You are very active on this blog, and have made a vast number of counter points to many of the other contributors to this blog. However, I am quite lost as to what your overall position is, and what you would do about Global Warming (if anything).

Could you write something that summarises your opinions? Maybe put that in your bio for the site?

I believe the following things and probably some other things that I have not thought of.

The climate is warming.

Some of the warming is attributable to the increased concentration of carbon dioxide; however, I believe that we do not know enough to estimate that contribution.

Our alteration of the landscape has had an effect, but not a major effect.

If the climate is warming in response to natural changes that we can do nothing to prevent it.

If carbon dioxide is causing a large portion of the warming that we can do nothing to prevent it.

That futile attempts (which are doomed to failure) to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to a level that will end climate warming will cause catastrophic economic crashes worldwide.

That the economic disaster that such attempts would cause would be far worse than any probable effects of climate warming.

That historically cold has caused famine, war, and pestilence; warm has caused the end to those plagues.

That the surface temperature record greatly overestimates the rate and magnitude of the increase in temperature and that the under accommodation for the urban heat island effect (UHIE) is the primary culprit. I learned from one of Dan’s links that the UHIE could cause overestimates of up to 15- Fahrenheit degrees. I did not know that it could be that much. The IPCC correction for the UHIE is on the order of 1-F degree. Listen daily to the airport and downtown temperatures in your area. Do you think 1 degree is enough?

That the IPCC has greatly overestimated the rate at which the concentration of carbon dioxide will rise in the future. Their estimated rate is 4 times the historical rate and I do not see that being possible in an era of declining supplies of fossil fuels.

That the IPCC estimate of the total possible increase is much too high. We already are seeing that their “enhanced feedback mechanism”, i.e. growth of water vapor concentrations, is not going to provide the kick that they predicted.

That carbon dioxide is a minor heat absorbing gas; that water vapor does 20 times more work.

That doubling carbon dioxide will cause a bit less than 1-Celsius degree of temperature rise and I would guess (purely a guess) that the total increase will be about 2 or 3 degrees.

That we can manage that much temperature rise and its accompanying effects.

That predictions of the spread of tropical diseases will come with the increased warmth are wrong. Florida and Costa Rica are as much warmer than London is now as London will be if the climate warms 3 degrees. There are no widespread plagues in either place.

That the frequency and severity of extreme weather events has not increased during the recent warming period and that further warming will not cause those things.

That the population of the earth will level out at about 8 to 9 billion and that we will be able to feed and care for that many.

That the sine qua non of population control is increased wealth in all areas of the world. Birth rates fall dramatically in prosperous societies; it has already begun in India.

That societies in much of the underdeveloped world are crushed under the weight of AIDS or malaria or both and that we must eliminate those scourges before we can expect the affected populations to regain the vigor needed to maintain successful societies.

That GM crops will ease the burden of feeding the entire population well, while reducing the land area required for food production thus allowing for preservation of more of our land for other uses.

That no democracy has ever attacked another democracy. That honest, democratic governance is the key to peaceful coexistence.

That the world is in much better shape than activist groups would have you believe.

That the Philadelphia Eagles will win the Super Bowl.

As I think of more, I’ll let you know.

There are, in fact two kinds of rationality we see in the climate debate. There is ‘micro-rationality’ (this is the I’m-all-right-jack view justified if ones blinkers are drawn in close enough) and there is ‘macro-rationality’ (displayed by people who succeed in looking beyond their own society, nation and culture to the big picture). We often see examples of ‘micro-rationality’ which are also examples of ‘macro-imbelicity’.

Most humans behave in a moderately rational way in terms of the assumptions of their particular culture. But if these cultural assumptions are based on narrow or incomplete undertanding of the total picture, the resulting behaviours can be far from rational.

It is a useful exercise to examine the behaviour of politicians, governments, even ourselves, for examples of ‘micro-rationality’ and ‘macro-imbecility’. (Many cases of marital infidelity are, sadly, illustrations of the principle.)

NorbertZ,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. (How do you find the time to do it?)

I certainly agree with a lot of your points, disagree with others and are undecided on others (who are the Philadelphia Eagles?). Certainly food for thought. Hopefully, at some time, I could respond in more detail.

In brief, it seems a key objection to taking action against Global Warming is the affect on the economy. Bjorn Lomborg, when I saw him speak last November, similarly rejected the Kyoto agreement on the basis that it was too expensive.

Personally, I think that is an error, and will leave this short memo with one of my favourite quotes ..

“Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist,” Keynes wrote.

http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/keynes03.html

We do need economists to work with ecologists!

Yours,

Peter Winters

I see we have a Lomborg clone in the house (and one who still lacks the courage to reveal his/her true identity). As I have the privilege of debating the man himself in London in a couple of months’ time, I’m grateful for this chance to refresh my memory about his views…

Lynn, I have – belatedly – read your personal entry on this site. Being an atheist, I had deferrred doing so. But I get inspiration from your posts, so I felt I needed to know better what drives you.

I DO like your Little Way of Healing as it applies to environmental matters. You show us a practical way that we in the Western, high-consumption societies can reduce our ecological footprint and, hence, our contribution to climate change. I suspect your Little Way of Healing would also add to individual and global human happiness as well.

Here in Australia, there is a move to what we call “downshifting”. Possibly the best exposition of downshifting is in Clive Hamilton’s book “Growth Fetish” published by the Australia Institute (http://www.tai.org.au/). A year ago I downshifted, taking a 75% drop in income to leave behind the futility of bureaucracy and move into a more positive, low consumption life. At present it’s high summer and I am growing all my own food from a garden that gives joy as well as produce.

I commend your bio on this site to all other readers. Even the climate skeptics cannot say it will do any harm. And I’m sure that, if adopted more widely in societies like yours and mine we’d all be happier people and the health of our perilous biosphere would be much better. Thanks for sharing the Little Way of Healing with us.

I always felt that Lynn sets the best example for all of us and this site would never be the same without her posts.

There is a useful critique of Michael Crichton’s ‘State of Fear’ at:

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/crichton/

A meaty, thorough comment.

The writer, Chris Mooney, also had a bit of fun (in The American Prospect last year) at the expense of the US senator James Inhofe – there’s a link from the above page.

Keith