Re: Little green idiots cause global warming

From: R Philip Dowds (rpdowds_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 12/18/04 

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 20:47:36 GMT

There's actually some interesting stuff worth talking about in this
post, so I'll take a swing at it:

hanson wrote:

...

> ------------------- orig post ---------------
> Re: Aliens Cause Global Warming - Caltech Michelin Lecture
>
> "Captain Compassion" <res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote
> in message news:5o4lr0p6d9fvlqjs7olcn7bbh1uvmcciio@4ax.com...
>
> Aliens Cause Global Warming
>
> A lecture by Michael Crichton
> Caltech Michelin Lecture
> January 17, 2003
>
> My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious.

...

(I'm cutting out large segments of text that aren't relevant to my
comments, but they can be found, of course, at the post of origin.)

...

> I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the
> rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus
> science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be
> stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has
> been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by
> claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the
> consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your
> wallet, because you're being had.
>
> Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with
> consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the
> contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right,
> which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by
> reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What
> is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in
> history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

Don't hasten past this one. Mr Crichton here sets the stage: The key
to good science, says he, is not preponderance of opinion, but
"reproducible results". A lab in Berkeley injects 100 chickens, and 98
lose their feathers; a lab in Dehli repeats the experiment, and 96 lose
their feathers. That's what most people regard as reproducible results.
But ...

A great deal of human affairs does not allow for this kind of repetitive
testing under controlled conditions. For instance, in the early 50's,
the CIA organized a coup which overthrew the democratically elected
Mohamed Mossadeg of Iraq. Most historians are now convinced that this
was seminal event in turning the Middle East against America, but ...
some historians still adhere to the thinking of the fifties, which is
that the Russians were about to make inroads in Iraq, and we had to act
in order to prevent a communist take-over.
      While this coup was and is of extreme importance, how can we
"prove" it was successful? Should the CIA have first tried a test of
maybe 20 coups in countries "similar" to Iraq, and used evaluation of
the consequences 10 years later to make a decision about whether coup or
no-coup was the best option? Should America take no action until it is
certain/sure about the outcome? Plainly, a lot of what we care about
and do is well beyond the reach of repetitive testing and reproducible
results. Does that mean it's also beyond the reach of science?

...

> At the time, there was a concerted desire on the part of lots of
> people to avoid nuclear war. If nuclear winter looked awful, why
> investigate too closely? Who wanted to disagree? Only people like
> Edward Teller, the "father of the H bomb."
>
> Teller said, "While it is generally recognized that details are still
> uncertain and deserve much more study, Dr. Sagan nevertheless has
> taken the position that the whole scenario is so robust that there can
> be little doubt about its main conclusions." Yet for most people, the
> fact that nuclear winter was a scenario riddled with uncertainties did
> not seem to be relevant.
>
> I say it is hugely relevant. Once you abandon strict adherence to what
> science tells us, once you start arranging the truth in a press
> conference, then anything is possible. In one context, maybe you will
> get some mobilization against nuclear war. But in another context, you
> get Lysenkoism. In another, you get Nazi euthanasia. The danger is
> always there, if you subvert science to political ends.
>
> That is why it is so important for the future of science that the line
> between what science can say with certainty, and what it cannot, be
> drawn clearly-and defended.

OK, another zinger is embedded here: "Certainty". For relatively simple
matters involving short time spans and few variables, scientific
certainty is indeed possible. We all have a pretty clear picture of
what happens when we mix oil and water, and can expect the same result
each time.
     But take something a little harder, like the relation between diet
and health. Most doctors and nutritionists agree that there is a strong
correlation between saturated fat and arterial blockage at the heart,
and they have plenty of repetitive data to back them up. But they also
have a small but significant number of contrary examples: People who
eat Big Macs every day and live into their '80's, versus vegetarians who
die of heart failure in their 40's. So while there's a strong probable
relation between diet and health for the population in aggregate, no
doctor can promise you a specific outcome based on dietary habits.
     So where does "certainty" fit into nutritional science? Is dietary
advice junk science, simply because it cannot guarantee a result?

...

>
> To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming
> controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back
> in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add
> weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a
> computer model." But now large-scale computer models are seen as
> generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well
> they reproduce data from the real world-increasingly, models provide
> the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are,
> when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data
> about the year 2100. There are only model runs.
>
> This fascination with computer models is something I understand very
> well. Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right.
> Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen
> can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate
> now stands.
>
> Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're
> asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future?
> And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody
> lost their minds?

All right, stop the music. Here, Mr Crichton displays a murky, or at
least opportunistic, grasp of the relation between (1) theory and
mathematical modeling; (2) scientific "proof"; and (3) decisions to act
based on "theory".

First, let's not gloss over his rash dismissal of weather forecasting.
It's just not true that "nobody believes a weather prediction twelve
hours ahead". Offhand, I'd say that the weather forecast for the next
day I hear each morning is accurate enough for my purposes at least 29
days out of 30; the forecast for the weekend that I hear on Wednesday
isn't quite so reliable, but it's pretty good too. I make plans or
modify my behavior based on these forecasts. I am not alone.
   I can also get forecasts in mid-July for the entire month of August
-- "hotter than normal", "wetter than normal", and so on. I may think
about these, but they are too non-specific, and too uncertain, to affect
my behavior. But it's worth pointing out that nobody has yet come up
with a credible theory connecting my behavior with the weather in
August. If somebody could make a persuasive argument that the clothes I
choose to wear in July are affecting the quality of weather in the
subsequent month, I might very well manage my attire more carefully.

Second, for better or worse, most science is now heavily reliant on
mathematical modeling, and on abstract theories ginned up by
mathematicians (Einstein being one of the most famous). Just look at
the entire progression of particle physics: Positrons, neutrinos, and
the Higgs boson all existed in theoretical mathematical models years
before -- sometimes decades before -- instrumentation was invented to
actually assemble data which served as "proof".

What Mr Crichton is doing here is double-crossing himself. Having
earlier ridiculed the tenacity of old theory in the face of better
theory and evidence, now he says climate theory is too juvenile and
unsubstantiated to warrant credulity -- which was a position he scorned
in the context of plate tectonics.

>
> Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the modelmakers is
> breathtaking. There have been, in every century, scientists who say
> they know it all. Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is
> sure-these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more
> to the point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can
> never get the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred
> years from now is simply absurd.

Now Mr Crichton has gone over the line. Here we have an ad hominem
attack on any scientist deeply committed to a theory which does not yet
have a consensus behind it, and for which evidence is still evolving.
Such a person is "arrogant". And this, from someone who just a few
paragraphs back denied "consensus science". Was Einstein arrogant
because he hung on to his models at a time when he was alone? (Many who
tried to dispute his general and special theories of relativity
concluded he was ...)

...

> Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even
> worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the
> future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's
> thought knows it.
>
> I remind you that in the lifetime of most scientists now living, we
> have already had an example of dire predictions set aside by new
> technology. I refer to the green revolution. In 1960, Paul Ehrlich
> said, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world
> will undergoe famines-hundreds of millions of people are going to
> starve to death." Ten years later, he predicted four billion people
> would die during the 1980s, including 65 million Americans. The mass
> starvation that was predicted never occurred, and it now seems it
> isn't ever going to happen. Nor is the population explosion going to
> reach the numbers predicted even ten years ago. In 1990, climate
> modelers anticipated a world population of 11 billion by 2100. Today,
> some people think the correct number will be 7 billion and falling.
> But nobody knows for sure.

Knows for sure? "Certainty" creeps in again. I will be very clear:
FOR BETTER OR WORSE, CERTITUDE HAS ALMOST NOTHING TO WITH OUR CHOICES.
Despite Bush Administration assertions to the contrary, certitude about
the status of Mr Hussein's WMDs was, at very best, weak. But we went to
war anyway. If we want to hold certitude as our standard of excellence
in public policy, let's at least do it consistently.

Actually, President Bush's argument for war was a little more complex
than mere certitude; he "argued in the alternative". It took the form
of, Can we afford to be wrong? Maybe we don't know for sure what's
going on in Iraq (despite UN inspectors roaming the country at will) --
just think of the consequences IF Mr Hussein does indeed have a viable
anthrax or nuclear program, and is about to launch it against us. The
risk is just too big, and we must act.
     If this is a valid decision-making algorithm, would it not apply to
global warming in spades?

...

>
> What is clear, however, is that on this issue, science and policy have
> become inextricably mixed to the point where it will be difficult, if
> not impossible, to separate them out. It is possible for an outside
> observer to ask serious questions about the conduct of investigations
> into global warming, such as whether we are taking appropriate steps
> to improve the quality of our observational data records, whether we
> are systematically obtaining the information that will clarify
> existing uncertainties, whether we have any organized disinterested
> mechanism to direct research in this contentious area.
>
> The answer to all these questions is no. We don't.

Bunk. Mr Crichton implies that climate science is a muddled miasma of
anxiety, speculation, and conflicted data. This is not true. In
progression from most certain to least certain:
     (1) Scientists and data are now (almost) fully agreed that the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing due to
human combustion of fossil fuel.
     (2) Many scientists and a lot of data indicate that this
re-concentration of carbon dioxide is pushing up the average temperature
of the earth. Furthermore, the *rate of change* of this average
temperature may be greater than at any point in planet history.
     (3) Scientists, models and data are in considerable disagreement
about what the consequences of an average temperature increase. At one
extreme, the theories are that there will be no important consequences,
except for maybe milder winters in New England. At the other extreme,
the theories are that within another generation or two, the earth will
be visited by floods, draughts, pestilence, storms, killer heat waves,
habitat failure, hyper-high tides, species loss, and other disasters
that will ruin the lives of millions or billions of people.

...

>
> Just as we have established a tradition of double-blinded research to
> determine drug efficacy, we must institute double-blinded research in
> other policy areas as well. Certainly the increased use of computer
> models, such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make
> the models from those who verify them. The fact is that the present
> structure of science is entrepeneurial, with individual investigative
> teams vying for funding from organizations which all too often have a
> clear stake in the outcome of the research-or appear to, which may be
> just as bad. This is not healthy for science.
>
> Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in
> this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by
> private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be
> pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The
> institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular
> area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement:
> teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many
> cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and
> those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to address
> the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our
> way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in
> global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this.

He might have a point here, but if he does, it's not specific to climate
research. From drugs to polymers, from AI to biogenetics, scientific
research is full of people trying to enhance their careers, make a buck,
or beat out a competitor. Perhaps Mr Crichton's recommendations would
be useful, but they are generic to the field, not demonstrative of
specific failures in climatology.

...

> 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.

I have not read Mr Lomborg's book, but I attended a debate at Harvard in
which he participated. He was (as Mr Crichton asserts) roundly
excoriated by both professors and students as a proponent of
pseudo-science. I thought his rebuttals were pretty feeble, but what do
I know, I'm an architect. (On the other hand ... since when in America
is specific training and expertise required for joining the public
policy fray?)

>
> 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.

I worry too. I sure don't pretend to have all the definitive answers
about global warming, but I am very worried. You should be too.

How to put this worry into action, and into public policy, will be the
topic of a companion post, "Proposal: A War on Global Warming". Check
it out.

In summary, I find Mr Crichton's presentation to be glib but ultimately
self-contradictory pastiche of anecdotes and sound bites. Well, what
the hell, he's a sci-fi writer. If you want to read about environmental
challenges in lucid prose written by a real scientist, try E O Wilson.

>
> Thank you very much.

And thank you.

RPD / Cambridge

“The enemy isn’t conservatism. The enemy isn’t liberalism. The enemy
is bull***.” Lars-Erik Nelson.

Quantcast