I had dinner with Richard Lindzen (along with Lucia, Steve McIntyre, Jeff Id, and others) last night after a hectic day of airline roulette. He’s easy to talk to and easy to like, so it is no surprise to me that he and Kerry Emanuel could have been friends as discussed in this Boston Globe article.
It is no surprise they grew to be friends.
Richard Lindzen and Kerry Emanuel are both brilliant and convivial. Both study the atmosphere and climate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where their offices overlooking the Charles River are one floor apart. In an academic world often dominated by liberals, both have strong conservative streaks and once agreed that the evidence for catastrophic man-made global warming just wasn’t there.
But then the climate changed between them. Friends became intellectual foes, dueling icons in one of the world’s most acrimonious political debates.
Friends had a hard time staying friends.
Lindzen, a leading specialist on atmospheric physics, has emerged as one of the most prominent climate change skeptics in the world. At age 70, he speaks at home and overseas, arguing that there is little to worry about from emissions of heat-trapping gases from power plants, factories, and cars. We should “go back to dealing with real science and real environmental problems such as assuring clean air and water,’’ he wrote in The Wall Street Journal on Earth Day.
Emanuel, an equally respected researcher, emerged as a preeminent voice on climate change’s potential dangers after he published a paper three weeks before Katrina that suggested global warming might be making hurricanes more powerful. Named one of the most influential people in the world by Time magazine, Emanuel, 55, says he has been persuaded by the evolving science that man-made climate change is a real threat.
“I don’t see how a climate scientist can look at the evidence and not see risk,’’ he said recently.
Emanuel thinks Lindzen’s key theories don’t hold up, and just two weeks ago went public with his criticism, penning a tart letter to the editor rebutting Lindzen’s Journal piece — “irresponsible and misleading,’’ he called it, “advancing spurious hypotheses.’’
Lindzen has implied that Emanuel is hyping the evidence and making a play for fame and funding in the age of Obama and Gore. In a letter savaging an opinion piece by Emanuel in the Globe, he branded the reasoning “more advocacy than assessment.’’
In the Ivory Tower, these are fighting words.
The story of the scientists’ relationship is much more than a curiosity. The fact that these serious-minded colleagues and longtime friends disagree so vehemently highlights the immense difficulty of finding common ground on human-caused global warming. That’s because their disagreements are not just about interpretations of scientific data, but about how they assess the risks, amid the uncertainty over global warming’s future impact.
Their divide mirrors a much larger political split, as the US Senate begins to debate a climate bill written in large part by Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry. All parties to the debate have the same evidence to draw on; their conclusions are another matter. Lindzen and Emanuel’s collision spotlights the ultimate sticking point: What steps should we take, and at what cost? That is: How much insurance against the possibility of catastrophe should a prudent planet buy?
“If these two guys can’t agree on the basic conclusions of the social significance of [climate change science], how can we expect 6.5 billion people to?’’ said Roger Pielke Jr., a University of Colorado at Boulder professor who writes a climate blog.
read the rest of the story here at the Boston Globe
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good day Anthony,
With the text running into the shaded borders,it is very difficult to read.
“Mr. Lindzen clings to his agenda of denial,’’ Emanuel wrote.
And so Professor Lindzen wins the argument, the science however remains unsettled.
Did Emmanuel make quick admission about the MWP when he said Greenland ice has melted before.That doesn’t fit with his AGW argument.
Wren says:
I was struck by that one too. Surely Roger Pielke Jr. doesn’t believe the scientific community is evenly divided on the issue.
Explain the significance of consensus, or even majority regarding science. Relate it to the pre-existing consensus prior to new discovery surrounding flat earth, Charles Darwin, earth-centered solar system, anti-matter, solar influence, hurricane frequency and intensity, Keynesian economics, etc.
Whose bread one eats, whose words one speaks.
Think Kerry, and Kerry.
By the way, yet another consensus seems to have been smashed,
I’ve got a short blurb about it at yours truly. Could be interesting for Anthony, and even Steve.
and RP Jnr seems to be falling behind things – the population is over 6.8B.
Let’s not discount 300 milion like that.
Science Wars: I’m currently reading Lee Smolin’s book The Trouble with Physics for a second time. There is a ‘debate’ going on in physics between string theorists and others, including the author. I was struck by the similarities with the ‘debate’ in climate science. ‘Debate’ here being a euphemism for something far ruder. Readers should note that string theory hasn’t explained anything yet and probably never will because there are 10^500 possible string theories, although that’s just my view. See how many of these extracts from the introduction have parallels with this post and the wider climate science:
First we have the models: Gerard ‘t Hooft, a Nobel prize winner for his work in elementary particle physics, has characterized the state of string theory this way : “Actually, I would not even be prepared to call string theory a ‘theory,’ rather a ‘model,’ or not even that: just a hunch.
Then we have ‘what else can it be?’: “the most likely reason why no … person has convinced others about [an] alternative to string theory is that there probably exists no alternative to string theory”.
One result of the rise of string theory is that the community of people who work on fundamental physics is split… The split is not always friendly. Doubts are expressed on each side about the professional competence and ethical standards of the other, and it is real work maintaining friendships across the divide.
Many adherents and critics of string theory are so confirmed in their views that it is difficult to have a cordial discussion on the issue, even among friends.
One reason to take these issues public goes back to the debate that took place a few years ago between scientists and “social constructivists,” a group of humanities and social science professors, over how science works. The social constructivists claimed that the scientific community is not more rational or objective than any other community of human beings. [They] argued that our claims about how science works were mainly propaganda designed to intimidate people into giving us power, and that the whole scientific enterprise was driven be the same political and sociological forces that drove people in other fields.
I would like to read the opinions from the pro AGW camp on what effect, if any, they believe “group think” has on the climate debate. The con men like Al Gore et. al. have pushed and pushed and pushed the message that if you don’t believe in the religion of global warming then you are somehow evil and uncaring about the environment. You’re a “denier” which instantly creates the impression that the skeptic also approves on the mass killings of millions of Jews during WWII.
The rift between Dr. Emanuel and Dr. Lindzen in my opinion, illustrates the psychosocial divide between the two men far more than any scientific dispute. The people in society that are vulnerable to the group think marketing message that caring and concern for the environment must be expressed through the crusade of global warming become trapped and are forced to parrot the AGW scriptures.
An individual like Dr. Lindzen who is not vulnerable to this group pressure sets a great example for all young science students to learn from. Dr. Lindzen is following in the footsteps of Galileo and other great people of history who dared to stand up to the group think pressure of the day. Thank you Dr. Lindzen for having courage to stand up for real science.
c1ue writes:
“Case in point: the MIT debate mentioned in the Boston.com article
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730
Here he talks about the ‘big coal’ funding for skeptics, etc etc.”
I heartily recommend this video. If you trust your judgement, you can see that Lindzen is the only adult in the group. The female professor spouts fine examples of the absurdities that come from those who have not gotten over Kuhn’s once-upon-a-time interesting criticisms of scientific method. In my humble opinion, Emmanuel is enjoying the celebrity that came to him because he predicted stronger hurricanes just before Katrina. He is now closer to Al Gore than to science.
Smokey
“So Kerry Emanuel is in it in large part for the money, and Lindzen is in it for the basic science. Can there be any other conclusion from Emanuel’s quote?”
That is Lindzen’s story, not a quote from Emanuel…
——
“Roger Pielke Jr. is a well respected voice on climatology. His quote refers to “social significance.”
Whether about climate science or social significance, he says that a
community cannot decide on a policy, because two scientists in the
same building disagree – that is either populistic or a thought that
shouldn’t have been voiced.
——
“Show me two scientists who agree on everything, and I’ll show you two scientists cashing in on the same grant.”
Why do you always choose the most unlikely explanation?
The two scientists just use their heads and come to the same
conclusion? There is a catch – ‘agree on everything’ – in your phrase,
but that is so evident, nobody does …
But, AGW proponents agree on the main issue and they are more
than two
Another example of the dishonest tactics of the CAGW contingent. I note that no one on the AGW side ever disavows slanders like this. As they say, silence is concurrence.
And Mikael: Dr Lindzen doesn’t chase after the money like Emanuel does. I also note that Emanuel does not refute Lindzen’s account. And you are still confused regarding the Pielke quote.
Given the ruinous economic policies of Obama and the natural competition from other science areas for funding, how much longer can Global Warming be the recipient of the R&D Gravy Train largesse?
The political value of AGW is fast fading. As the planet refuses to warm at a catastrophic rate as predicted, as people naturally worry more about their paycheck than what is happening to ice in the Arctic, politicians will jump off the bandwagon and abandon their fair wind science buddies faster than people leaving a fart filled elevator.
Obama, for all his faults as a money manager, has sensitive political antennae . . . he’ll throw anyone or anything under the bus if he thinks his political ambition is in jeopardy.
AGW, meet Obama’s bus.
Have a nice day.
Gotta run. Emmanuel and Landsea get along sort of:
http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/content/news/2010/02/27/lyons0228.html
I think this is separate stuff, but good:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/weather/hurricanes/article647649.ece
Glad Anthony made it to dinner.
DirkH says:
May 16, 2010 at 7:15 am
“Curiousgeorge says:
[…]
If Thor’s prognosis comes to pass […]”
Well, with that name…
Does make one wonder. 🙂 He’s published one book that I know of: “Iceland (Classic Geology in Europe 3) ” available at Amazon (of course ), but haven’t read it.
Emanuelle just does the same here as all the pro-AGW believers – he asserts all these “alarming” observations (or model projections) of warming, sea rises, etc as being evidence in themselves of man being the cause. Obviously I don’t have to tell anyone on this site what drivel that is. Worse, he starts preaching about political ramifications and the threat of war. Even worse, he compares AGW-sceptics with people who don’t believe HIV is linked to AIDS (but says “which is a good thing!”). And then he says “If you want proof, you’re not going to get it.” How about some evidence , Mr Emanuelle, and less unscientific, alarmist preaching?
Lindzen, on the other hand, coolly gives some irrefutable facts: climate has always changed, sea level has been rising since the beginning of the current inter-glacial, and temperature is always going either up or down. He tells us in so many words that ‘consensus’ is scientifically worthless. Now, will a pro-AGWist tell me: What’s to argue about any of that?
AlanG writes:
“The social constructivists claimed that the scientific community is not more rational or objective than any other community of human beings. [They] argued that our claims about how science works were mainly propaganda designed to intimidate people into giving us power, and that the whole scientific enterprise was driven be the same political and sociological forces that drove people in other fields.”
Scientists have the scientific method. It is a critical method. It is dedicated to criticism and refinement of all scientific hypotheses by anyone who has the ability to “weigh in” on a particular hypothesis. Beyond the work of criticizing and refining hypotheses, scientific method has nothing to say. However, scientists are perfectly free to move beyond scientific method and make policy recommendations, but in doing so they are not acting as scientists. Anyone remember Lyndon Johnson’s complaint that he was sick of hearing “on the other hand” and that he wanted one-handed scientists. Those who are willing to be allied with Al Gore are truly one-handed scientists. By the way, one of the Constructivists’ many errors is the simple-minded error that scientific method serves one-handed scientists.
As an Engineer, who has DESIGNED, BUILT, RUN, MAINTAIN systems which better mankind all my life, I have NOTHING but distain for K.E., as I imagine he probably hasn’t DESIGNED, BUILT, RUN or MAINTAINED the things that give him his FOOD, he WATER, his SHELTER..
Now the same can be said for R.L.
So I give you a new “gospel”. How about turning the Gorebull warming “debate” over to ENGINEERS? The problem is, then it would no longer be a debate, but it would lead towards a SOLUTION.
Intellectuals (psuedo – definition of same, anyone that thinks, is called by others, or SAYS tha they are an “intellectual”..) HATE that idea of “SOLUTIONS”.
Phooey on the the “intellectuals”. A pox on all their houses.
Max
It seems to me that Kerry Emmanuel got lucky in the timing of his article . Yes , Katrina was a disaster , but the havoc wrought on New Orleans was not a result of the hurricane’s strength but of the failure of the levies . Please remember that New Orleans breathed a sigh of relief after Katrina passed , only to experience devastation when the levies broke . Had they been properly maintained , the levies should have held . As has been discussed on this site on numerous occasions , hurricanes have increased neither in number nor intensity in recorded history and by the time Katrina made landfall it wasn’t that strong – cat three , if I rember correctly . Obviously , it was strong enough to catapult Emmanuel into the limelight .
The late Dr. Richard Feynman had much to say on confirmation bias, and more importantly, what he termed “incentive bias” at NASA with respect to the Challenger shuttle explosion. AGW proponents have a very large incentive bias.
see the linked article, and scroll down to “Nature Cannot Be Fooled.”
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive.html
Skeptics of AGW are doing what is right, what is scientifically supportable, and not succumbing to the allure of incentive bias.
Maybe some are more pagan than they care to admit. That vociferous faction wants us to pay homage to the CO2 idol as the way to quell the storms, assuage the earthquakes, and reinvigorate the sun. The modern twist is that the priests of the CO2 idol will take your homage in taxes (or else you’re fined) and the earth will moderate, mankind will be prosperous once again, and smiley faces will emblazon all t-shirts.
I’m wondering if their rush to impose this change is the fact that the CO2 idol has turned out to be invisible, odorless, and beneficial to plants—nothing like the nasty being first described. Their vituperative stranglehold on the masses is clearly breaking down.
Please tell me that K. Emanuel is not from the same gene pool as Rahm and Ezekiel.
US senators unveil climate change bill
US senators have unveiled details of a long-awaited bill on climate change – a key plank of President Obama’s domestic agenda. Senator John Kerry revealed that the bill proposes cutting US “carbon emissions” by 17% by 2020. He said he was aiming for the US to be the world’s “clean-energy leader”.
This is the same John Kerry who thought AGW was “hogwash” until he married his rich wife, who is a man-made global warming fanatic. Obama has given his backing to Mr Kerry’s proposals.
Republican sweeteners
The bill has been languishing for months after earlier versions raised vehement objections from Republicans. Mr Kerry said the stakes were now “sky high”. “This is a bill for energy independence after a devastating oil spill, a bill to hold polluters accountable, a bill for billions of dollars to create the next generation of jobs and a bill to end America’s addiction to foreign oil,” he said.
The bill proposes setting a price on “carbon emissions” (they can’t manage to use the words “carbon dioxide” any more) for large “polluters” such as coal-fired power plants. (Someone should tell these idiots that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it’s plant food, without which most of this planet’s life forms would be dead.)
Mr Kerry and Senator Joe Lieberman, who is also sponsoring the bill, say the farms and most small and medium-sized businesses will be exempt from the charges. And it will offer incentives of up to $2bn a year for firms to develop so-called clean coal technologies, including methods to capture and store “carbon emissions”. The senators inserted sweeteners for the bill’s potential opponents – including provisions aimed at boosting nuclear power.
But the bill is subject to a constrained political timetable. Immigration laws have been moved to the top of the agenda, and, with elections later in the year, it is uncertain whether the climate bill will even be discussed this year. After the elections, the Democrats may well lose their stranglehold on Congress, making it much harder to get the bill passed into law. Mr Kerry said it was the “last best chance” at framing climate change legislation.
The bill also includes provisions for relaxing rules on offshore oil-drilling – highly controversial in the wake of the huge Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Mr Obama had announced plans to ease drilling restrictions earlier this year, but the oil spill forced a rethink.
The bill unveiled by Mr Kerry now includes provisions to allow states to veto proposed drilling if they can prove it poses a risk. “The challenges we face – underscored by the immense tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico – are reason to redouble our efforts to reform our nation’s energy policies,” Mr Obama said.
I’d like to set something straight here re: the above conversation and many other related conversations on climate change.
“It is generally accepted that a doubling of CO2 will only produce a change of about two degrees Fahrenheit if all else is held constant.”
This is Dr. Lindzen’s statement in his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on 30 November, 2009, (http://online.wsj.com/article SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html)
Thus:
1) Dr. Lindzen acknowledges that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, should, absent other feedbacks, warm the surface.
2) Given that our current path of emissions will likely take us to at least 5xCO2-equivalent (i.e. including the effects of increasing concentrations of other GHGs such as methane) by 2100, Dr. Lindzen believes that the resulting warming of 4-5F is, as noted in his op-ed, “unlikely to be much to worry about”.
First, in the feedback-free case, this statement is not scientific but instead is purely a value judgment: he believes that a warming of 4-5F globally (including larger regional variations) would not severely disrupt society in any way that one ought to be concerned.
Second, with respect to the real climate including all of its feedbacks, Dr. Lindzen’s statement hypothesizes that there is a net negative feedback in the climate system that will prevent the real climate from warming significantly more than feedback-free case–i.e. by an amount that might indeed severely disrupt society. While possibly true (and how great that would be!), he has not found much evidence to support this claim either in theory or models. Because of this, his assumptions are once again not scientific but instead purely value judgments for which he is advocating under the veil of scientific credibility.
Hope this clears up his views, particularly for many of those who categorically reject the science of climate change and cite Dr. Lindzen for support when in fact his scientific views do not substantiate those claims.
RockyRoad writes:
“Maybe some are more pagan than they care to admit.” . Many folks say that environmentalism, the green movement, whatever you want to call it, is becoming more like a religion. Excuse me. It is a postmodern expression of the oldest religion known to mankind, Paganism. Worship of Mother Earth, in all her myriad manifestations, cannot be anything else.