Re: Little green idiots cause global warming

From: charliew2 (charliew_at_ev1.net)
Date: 12/18/04 

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:12:47 -0600

"R Philip Dowds" <rpdowds@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:IH0xd.3361$Z47.1665@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> 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.

This was an exercise in the realm of politics, not science. The analogy is
flawed.

> 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?
>
> ...
>

It means that claiming a scientific argument for something that cannot be
experimentally tested, for whatever reason, is normally a bad thing to do.
Such arguments tend to fall into the category of opinion and speculation.
Without the reproducible experimentation, you can never tell where a
hypothesis is succeeding and failing.

> > 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.

That's correct - you can repeat the experiment. Another comment - most real
world problems have more than three independent variables involved, and
often many more. Most humans start getting confused when they have to deal
with two or more independent variables at the same time. For something as
complicated as global climate models, which have hundreds, thousands, or
millions of independent variables, there is no doubt that such complexity is
beyond full human comprehension.

> 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?

Michael Crichton was probably referring to 95% confidence, which is the
generally accepted statistical measure of certainty.

>
> ...
>
> >
> > 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).

Mathematical modeling should *always* be verified by real world data. I
will not get too detailed here, but suffice it to say that there are very
many ways to get mathematical modeling wrong. Just because a set of
equations exists in a computer, and the computer is capable of converging
those equations, does *not* necessarily mean that the resulting answer is
correct. In fact, for the highly multi-variable problems, the resulting
answer is a very large printout which contains a lot of small changes in
each of the variables. Human interpretation of such output is
problematical, even when it can be proven that the output is correct.

> 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".

Once again, the predictions were backed up with experimental results that
confirmed the predictions.

>
> 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.
>

Climate model output is not evidence. It is a prediction of what is
expected to happen, based on all of the input data.
Such a prediction should be verified with real world measurements.

> >
> > 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.

Consensus is not science. It is an appeal to authority, which is a well
known logical fallacy.

> 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 ...)

Einstein based his theories on a very well known experiment by Michaelson
and Morley, in which it was clearly demonstrated that the speed of light is
constant in all reference frames. This simple demonstration led directly to
Einstein's work, and that work evolved into a host of implications for the
then accepted Newtonian physics of the early 1900's. The point - Einstein
didn't blindly try to overthrow the established physics of his day. He
sought to provide an explanation for experimental evidence that clearly
contradicted the status quo.

>
> ...
>
> > 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.

Why do you insist on using political analogies to draw scientific
conclusions? Science and politics don't mix.

>
> 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.

Correct, as demonstrated by actual measurements.

> (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.

Speculation. Besides, humans should be worried about what has occurred in
the last 1-2 million years rather than the whole history of the planet.

> (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.

Another generation or two is not very far into the future. It shouldn't
take very long to verify the theories of such alarmists, should it?

>
> ...
>
> >
> > 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.
>

You may have misinterpretted his point. He is saying that even climate
scientists, funded by government money, can have a conflict of interest such
that they tend to report developments in ways that will guarantee future
funding. If such scientists say that there is no problem, you can be sure
that the government will cut funding.

His proposal to "spread out" the process tends to ensure that such a real or
perceived conflict of interest has a minimal impact on the science.

> ...
>
> > 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?)
>

So, you recognize that the global warming debate is as much political as it
is scientific?

> >
> > 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.

I'm worried, but not about global warming.

>
> 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