Dr. Roger Cohen, APS member, sends this via email commenting on this Dot Earth article.
Where do I start?
Well, maybe the most offensive part of this column is the use of psychobabble to distract and divert attention from the real issue, which is the science, and whether it has been corrupted. Of course Revkin will \”share Ropeik’s view.\” Would there be any doubt? This mumbo jumbo is a symptom of the burgeoning industry of treating global warming deniers as mentally ill, a stark reminder of how easy it was for the Soviet Union to throw dissenters into mental hospitals.
Am I exaggerating? Hardly. Take a look at this piece on a conference held in 2009 at the University of West England http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/6320/ . It was aimed at trying to understand just what affliction plagues those people who simply don’t see or can’t find the \”mountains of evidence\” for serious anthropogenic global warming. Evidently it has spawned a new field — \”ecopsychology.\” Lord help us.
As for the science, Lewis and many others who have bothered to actually look into it cannot find the purported strong case for serious anthropogenic global warming. Indeed the balance of evidence points to a small anthropogenic component, far smaller than IPCC summary conclusions. It will of course take time for this to be widely understood and broadly accepted, but it will. There will be a Kuhnian paradigm shift at some point. Meanwhile the tainted IPCC process and other shenanigans have caused public erosion in the trust it had invested in science and scientists. None of us know how this distrust, which is part of the larger decline of confidence in our key institutions, will resolve.
As for the APS and Dr. Lewis’s beef with it, readers may wish to review the information available at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/aps-responds-deconstructing-the-aps-response-to-dr-hal-lewis-resignation/ It sheds a bit more light on what is really going on.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Andrew P 15th Oct 11:01:
You mention a post-war debate in the UK parliament where the dropping of nuclear bombs on the USSR was discussed. Could you give a date or other details of this debate, please? I should like to look it up for myself. Thanks, Dave.
James Sexton: “Also, in the analogy, do you think Martin Luther was the first to express those thoughts?”
I’m not sure. But we know that Luther was a primary mover in sparking enormous political and social change that lasted decades, that shook the foundations of not just religious authority, and that had a huge influence on the modern world.
Anybody can say anything about climate science, and they do. But not everybody who says things about climate science is feted as the equivalent of Martin Luther and his challenge to the orthodoxy.
So if the analogy to Luther is serious, the expectations riding on Lewis are enormous. I think those expectations would be too much for any person to bear, much less someone who seems to be pretty peripheral to the field of climate science.
Robert E Phelan: “Your argument is a tired variation on “well why don’t you skeptics publish an alternative explanation?”
Only if Lewis is to be regarded as a modern Martin Luther. Someone who is going to push through the sort of momentous changes wrought by the Reformation needs to have a big idea or two.
Perhaps Lewis does have a big idea about climate, but if so it hasn’t been publicised to the extent that his resignation has been publicised.
On the other hand, if Lewis is just a guy who’s found himself in the limelight by circumstance, fine, he doesn’t need a big idea. But in that case, nor is he a modern-day Martin Luther.
@davidmhoffer
Brilliant!
@ur momisugly James Sexton, October 15, 2010 at 11:12 pm:
“Now, Dr. Lewis is in the twilight of both his career and life is forced to witness the mockery of all that he’s devoted to his life’s work. There isn’t a person reading this that shouldn’t feel outrage, I know I do.”
Well said indeed!
I am grateful to Prof Hal Lewis for having taken this step – and wish some more of the ‘Big beasts’ in science would follow his lead.
All I can say is that any scientist worth his calling should have been outraged for some time already – Nov 17th 2009 being the last date where the shoe really should have dropped as far as the ‘science; in ‘climate science’ is concerned.
@ur momisugly Brendan H, October 16, 2010 at 3:54 am:
It is not about Hal Lewis having or not having a ‘big idea’ about climate.
His resignation is about the perversion of the Scientific Method perpetrated for years by the climate ‘scientists’.
That is why he calls it a fraudulent pseudo-science.
One does not have to be a climate ‘scientist’ to grasp the perversity of splicing different data together (tree rings/temperature) in order to achieve the desired result.
One does not even have to be a physicist to grasp that models whose predictions cannot be found in observation in nature have to be wrong.
One can be a very small foot soldier in the big army of natural scientists to understand all that, and to be as outraged as Professor Lewis is.
And one does not even have to be a scientist at all to understand that political activism, in the guise of ‘science’, is a thoroughly bad thing.
That is what this is about – it is not about a better, more streamlined climate ‘science’ Mk II which any critic of AGW has to supply before they’re allowed to open their mouths.
The “mountain of evidence” they blatantly ride is now showing no logical support for catastrophic results; indeed, the estimation of the science Dr. Lewis currently has is better supported from direct measurements than the modeled psychobabble put forth by those supporting “climate disruption”. Attempts to marginalize Dr. Lewis appear to be failing in the face of true science as opposed to computer modeling (which is not true science). By all means, let Dr. Lewis change his opinion from past statements, which is what a true scientist does when faced with the current “mountain of evidence”.
On the psycho babble front, what’s actually happening in climate ‘science’ is usually termed Pathological Science.
Pointman
Roger says:
October 15, 2010 at 1:44 pm
…As contrary evidence has accumulated and political efforts have been frustrated, proponents of global warming have shown signs of cognitive dissonance….
Excellent analysis Roger. I agree completely with your assessment. This is not a scientific struggle we’re engaged in. It is a religious and/or belief system paradigm that creates very destructive policy decisions. Well done.
Ref – anna v says:
October 16, 2010 at 12:44 am
Maybe! (Ref the Mirrors)
Hope not! (Ref the Mirrors)
Very unscientific! (Ref the Mirrors)
Anti-Evolutionary! (Ref the Mirrors)
Too much CO2! (Ref the Mirrors)
Why bother? (Ref the Mirrors)
A glacial is a great way to clean out the cobwebs.
Just look at the change in the genome the last glacial period brought.
Nope! Preventing the next glacial is counterproductive to species development.
No mirrors!
(Wish you hadn’t said anything about mirrors;-)
Heh, I like Andy. I trust Andy’s curiosity and intellectual honesty. But I also like Dr Crinum’s diagnosis in comment #89: “Very sick. Andy, you blew it”.
===================
I’d like to commend wmar, a marvelous voice for just over two years now.
===================
I wonder if I should make an appointment with an ‘eco-psychologist’ to see if I’m okay?
Robert E. Phelan says:
October 16, 2010 at 12:16 am
James Sexton says:
October 15, 2010 at 11:20 pm
“I stand corrected, however “beat” is not part of the definition……..”
Robert, I was acknowledging the wisdom in your post. Right, beat may be a bit harsh sounding. I’ve never really seen it worded as ““inner-directed” vs “outer-directed”. I’ve heard relative vs. static, but I think you pretty much nailed it. No, beatings and church aren’t required, but they were an effective mechanism that would create an “inner-directed” individual/society.
As others have mentioned, changing views based on new information IS science. Not changing views is religion.
I think the AGW views fall into 3 categories.
1) Accepted AGW but never really looked at it.
2) Bought into AGW and became a pro-active proponent.
3) Never accepted or bought into AGW.
Many skeptics today are in group 1) and I suspect that is also where Dr. Lewis started. Most alarmists today started in 2) and will never escape that category as they now have invested their egos in their position. What Revkin is asking is why wasn’t Dr Lewis in 3). Easy answer … he never looked at the subject in detail but trusted the scientists. It was only when he saw that trust abused that he took a serious look.
I am in 1). My motive to look closely was based on statements by Michael Crichton. Others had differing reasons to look closely and ClimateGate is certainly the big one.
“We are a product of our culture, as much as we would like to believe otherwise. Behind the outstanding successes of our world is not so much the faithful wife, but the hidden advantages imparted by their life experiences.”
I doubt that this claim can be made non-trivial. For example, I dearly love college football and am a product of my culture to that degree, but goodness that claim is trivial. When we turn to important matters, ask yourself what went wrong with Martin Luther, Galileo, and a million other individuals. Because such people pretty much destroyed the culture which nurtured them, I do not think you can make a non-trivial claim that their serious works were products of their culture. And, surely, you ae not going to embrace the Marxist claim that my ideas cause my experience.
Revkin has his OWN memory problems!
It appears that his HYSTERIA about “genetically modified crops” of the 1990’s (early, generally) somehow magically “disappeared” as the “non-problem” nature became apparent.
We’ll give him credit, he did make that realization. (Just search under GM Crops/Hazard and you’ll find plenty of evidence of “true believers” still active in trying to spread unnecessary panic!)
Andrew P writes:
“Yes, I am sure they were, but they had good reason to; just after WW2 there was a very serious debate in the UK parliament about whether we should drop nuclear bombs on Moscow lest they became a military threat. So Stalin and Krushchev had good reason to be paranoid, and would have been remiss of them to not develop their bomb and seek ways to protect their populations from the all to real threat posed by the west.”
Artful try, Andrew. Now give yourself a real challenge. Explain the paranoia that built the Berlin Wall.
It’s useful to keep in mind that many of the people and organizations pushing AGW the hardest are the same ones that raised (and still raise) the most vocal objections to biotechnology, particularly agricultural biotechnology. These groups, 30 or 40 years ago, were united and vocal in their opposition to chemical pesticides and their desire to reduce the use of these products. Agricultural biotechnology has, in several cases, achieved this. The introduction of Bt cotton has dramatically reduced the amount of chemical insecticide use in cotton cropping systems, yet environmental groups fiercely oppose the registration and widespread use of such crop strains. Why? They claim there are yet unrecognized risks from these things and invoke- wait for it- the precautionary principle. Fortunately, in the US the regulatory authorities have been able to overcome such arguments and these crops are in wide use with no evidence of environmental damage or harm to human health. The EU is a different story, since the “Greens” have greater influence there due to parliamentary political considerations.
Enviros object to biotechnology because corporations can use it to make new products and make a profit (without massive government subsidies and control). They can’t stand it when that happens. That worldview drives the AGW agenda.
@max Hugoson: Are you confusing Andrew Revkin and Jeremy Rifkin? I don’t remember Revkin saying much about biotechnology, but I certainly haven’t followed his career closely so maybe I’ve missed something. Your point, either way, is well taken.
Robert E. Phelan says:
October 15, 2010 at 11:05 pm
Theo Goodwin says:
October 15, 2010 at 5:38 pm
“The only folks in the world who continue to claim that a scientist’s “world view” shapes their experience of the evidence are the hardcore Marxists”
“While the notion of a “constructed reality” has certainly been helpful to both Marxists and their leftist critics (e.g. the idea of “false consciousness”) there is a great deal of evidence to support the idea that world view shapes the experience of facts.”
As I wrote in my post to Lucy Skywalker, I will definitely concede that “culture” shapes experience in low-level matters, but the idea that it does with regard to highly ramified contexts, such as the contexts of scientific theory, is what I call Radically False. Galileo’s critiques of Aristotelian science, his invention of scientific method, and many other matters are clear evidence of genius. They have no predecessors. No appeal to Galileo’s culture or the culture of European science at that time adds one iota to our understanding of Galileo’s achievement. Go to Newton. He invented calculus. Then he applied it to physics. Both achievements were “sui generis.” (Yes, I know Leibniz had his version of calculus but his applications were trivial.) I repeat: no appeal to the background of such men can add one iota to our understanding or use of their achievements.
I believe that in comparing Lewis to Martin Luther, Anthony intended to emphasize that an ANOINTED INSIDER had come forward to REVEAL CORRUPTION at the heart of his organization. It seems to me that the comparison is apt. To read more into the comparison is to get sidetracked.
Yes it really is about “following the money”. That’s exactly what happens when a newly discovered treasure trove of a limited resource is boosted in a public offering.
This AGW road act is forcibly cranking the greatest economic ‘inflationary bubble’ that humanity has known.
Regardless of any ‘science’ or lacking thereof, the frenzied feeding on resource allocation, manipulation and consumption of a ‘fear mongered’ commodity has created it’s own ‘self-inflating’ bubble and bombast.
Brendan H
Perhaps Lewis does have a big idea about climate, but if so it hasn’t been publicised to the extent that his resignation has been publicised.>>
Dr. Lewis need no thesis of his own in climate science to condemn the manner in which climate science has been conducted. 2+2=4 and one need not be a mathemitician to condemn an analysis in which 2+2= between 3 and 5. There is no need to examine the resulting conclusions, nore refute them, because they are predicated upon a calculation that while not technically wrong, serves no scientific purpose. The only purpose one can ascribe to such an approach is that the authors introduced an unnecessary range in place of precision for purposes that have nothing to do with science, and everything that comes after that in their analysis is by default suspect.
Dr Lewis condemns the manner in which data has been collected, analyzed, manipulated, excluded, adjusted, contrived, substituted, lost, hidden and suppressed. When a towering intellect with his credentials speaks in this manner and the best his critics can come up with is that he has published no thesis of his own, while working feverishly behind the scenes to ensure that not just his letter of resignation but even his entire career is erased from the public consciousness by deleting it from Wikipedia, the truth of the matter becomes clear.
There can be no other purpose ascribed to the behaviour of those Dr Lewis condemns than circumvention of science based only on the manner in which they have conducted it. They at once produce analysis predicated on 2+2 = some range of convenient numbers, while pointing at the horizon and screaming that the earth is flat, why can’t you see the obvious?
Charlatans. 2+2=4 and nothing else. I’ve driven over the horizon and I’ve returned to say the earth is round. I’ve investigated the science, and it makes a mockery of what is so obvious to “see”. Only in a computer model would I have fallen off the edge of the world.
Theo Goodwin says:
October 16, 2010 at 8:52 am
“I doubt that this claim can be made non-trivial…. surely, you ae not going to embrace the Marxist claim that my ideas cause my experience.”
Theo, the idea that your “ideas” affect the way you experience phenomena is not just Marxist and not all that recent: the ancient Greeks developed a view around the dynamic, creative power of ideas. They used the word “logos” (“word”) to signify this power, and it was identified specifically as God in the first line of John’s Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word”…. the Hebraic founders of Christianity were specifically joining their ethical monotheism to Hellenic Philosophy and expressing themselves in Greek rather than Hebrew, their liturgical language, Aramaic, their everyday language, or Latin, the administrative language of their overlords. In his address at Regensberg Pope Benedict specifically addresses the fact that Western Civilization is an outgrowth of Christianity and Christianity in turn rests firmly on Greek thinking. Modern science is a product of western civilization and Christianity. That is certainly “non-trivial”.
One would think that the experience of misery would be straightforward. The Hindu caste system, for example, condemned untold millions to lives of privation and misery and which they endured because they were working out their karma. Failure to accept their lot in life would increase their negative karma and condemn them to ever greater privations in the next life. In Imperial China misery was experienced as a failure of the leadership, the emperor had somehow failed in his duties as Emperor and was losing the Mandate of Heaven (a concept that is still part of the ideological lexicon in Chinese politics). The loss of the Mandate of Heaven was seen as the occassion for uprising. In modern America, misery is seen as a failure of the political process to adequately prepare for disaster (i.e. Hurricane Katrina). None of these examples of culture shaping perception are trivial.
Finally, Galileo and Martin Luther were in fact very definitely products of their culture. The science of Galileo had its roots in the philosophical speculations of Albertus and Aquinas and the “natural theology” of their successors, looking for the signature of God in the handiwork of His creation. Luther’s revolt was the culmination of trends going back to the very founding of Christianity, the nature of Free Will and God’s foreknowledge, the efficacy of works over faith, the nature of man’s relationship to God, the proper composition and role of the Church. In a diverse society, many cultural branches can evolve and become mutually contradictory, even having started from the same place…. a point Marx makes quite well when he talks about “contradictions”. Luther and Galileo both could only have been products of Western Culture. Karl Marx himself was a product of his culture, although probably a little less clear-eyed about it than he imagined, and much of his thinking grew out of living in a stage of the industrial revolution where living standards for the proletarians had not yet caught up with production. In one sense, when productive capacity began to exceed the demands of the middle class market, it was imperative to tap into the working class as a potential market, and to do that they needed to have more disposable income…..