Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Alex Beam and the romance of denial

By

Globe columnist Alex Beam clearly prides himself on being a smart, contrarian sort. I can’t imagine, then, why he writes such a credulous piece on MIT’s famous global-warming denier Richard Lindzen:

“This is the criminalization of opposition to global warming,” says Lindzen, who adds he has never communicated with the auto companies involved in the lawsuit. Of course Lindzen isn’t a fake scientist, he’s an inconvenient scientist. No wonder you’re not supposed to listen to him.

Cue the John Williams score in the background, please.

OK, spare me the hysterical self-pity. Look, it’s all fine and well to inveigh against intellectual orthodoxies, but you know, at some point you’ve just got to decide based on the actual merits of something. Lindzen’s opinions are one data point in a vast constellation of scientists who say he’s wrong. Why does Beam choose to lionize this guy?

I’m not calling Lindzen a crackpot, or a shill, or a jerk, or a jaywalker, or anything. And calling attention to those who do is utterly beside the point: Who cares what Laurie David thinks, one way or the other? Look Alex — there’s just a huge mountain of evidence and people every bit as qualified as he, that say he’s wrong. And this stuff matters.

As historian of science Naomi Oreskes wrote in the LA Times, history is littered with brilliant people who stubbornly clung to false ideas. So while Alex Beam may have fallen in love with the romance of the lonely orthodoxy-busting scientist … you know, maybe Lindzen’s just a smart guy who got it wrong. It happens. Get over it, Alex.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. This is what I can never figure out about people who refuse to believe in global warming.  Even if it’s not true that humans are damaging the environment and that we’ve got at most ten years to turn things around, don’t improving conservation, switching to renewable, non-polluting energy sources, reducing dependence on oil, etc., etc., make sense anyway?  Aren’t they good ideas on their own?  Better air quality, more efficiency, lower energy costs, and fewer complications in our diplomatic dealings with foreign oil-producing countries are all benefits in and of themselves.  So if the deniers are right but we act as if global warming is real, we get that set of benefits and that’s all, at the cost of some short-term economic stress.  If we act as if global warming is real, and it is, then we get all those benefits plus our planet remains livable, we don’t have catastrophic flooding along every coastline in the world, and we don’t have dozens or hundreds of Hurricane Katrinas.  If global warming isn’t real and we just keep going as we have been, then nothing much changes; but if it is real and we keep going as we have been, then we’re all doomed in a matter of decades.  Didn’t Pascal have this figured out almost four hundred years ago?

  3. Isn’t there a line somewhere between critique (someone calling you a shill; whatever; totally okay; relax) and lawsuit?  Isn’t Beam’s point that the lawsuit is what’s over the line? 

    <

    p>
    I agree with you that Lindzen’s take is likely wrong.  Here’s a good rebuttal to Lindzen, btw. 

    <

    p>
    If you’ll stipulate for the sake of argument that this guy doesn’t work for auto companies as charged, do you think he should have to defend himself in this way? 

    <

    p>
    And if not, don’t you think that you should be caustic towards those suing him, falsely accusing him of “faking science” instead of simply being wrong?  In fact, isn’t that sort of attack precisely what you tend to discourage on BMG? 

    • I haven’t read the suit, and I don’t know exactly what Beam is referring to, but I’ll bet you dollars to donuts this is what’s happening: Enviros sue the auto companies for spewing pollutants and CO2 gases; car companies say they’re not pollutants; auto co’s. bring up global warming deniers Lindzen, Patrick Michaels et al to back up their case; Enviro lawyers attack deniers’ science by trying to prove conflict of interest, getting $$$ from fossil fuel producers. And in Michaels’ case, they’ve got him dead to rights. Don’t know about Lindzen.

      <

      p>
      That’s just my guess, before looking — maybe we can find out exactly what Beam is talking about.

      • Lindzen works for the “doubt shops” that are funded by oil:

        <

        p>

        Richard Lindzen
        Member, Science and Economic Advisory Council
        The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy

        Contributing Writer
        The Cato Institute

        Contributing Writer
        Techcentralstation.com

        The Annapolis Center received $27,500 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving in 2003.

        The Cato Institute received $25,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003.

        Tech Central Station received $95,00 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003.

        <

        p>
        Ok, that’s not the same as “faking science.” Conflict of interest? You decide.

  4. Cato’s Patrick J. Michaels, Virginia Polytech on Global Warming. “Is the Sky Really Falling”

    <

    p>
    Money quote: 

    <

    p>

    It is highly improbable, in a statistical sense, that new information added to any existing forecast is almost always “bad” or “good”; rather, each new finding has an equal probability of making a forecast worse or better. Consequently, the preponderance of bad news almost certainly means that something is missing, both in the process of science itself and in the reporting of science.

    <

    p>
    Remember, Clinton never submitted the Kyoto accord for ratification, and in 1997 the Senate in a 95-0 vote agreed that the Accord would disporportionately punish US output relative to competitors China and India.

    <

    p>
    Has so much changed since 1997 that by now all scientists, except crackpots and shills, are certain that man-made carbon is the problem, disasters are the outcome, and cutting carbon output is the solution?

    <

    p>
    I don’t think the problem is Big Oil, or Big Green.  I think the problem might just be Big Fearmongering Journalists.

    <

    p>
    Cripes, last night on 20/20, “the last days on earth” I learned that we could be mowed down by a maurauding black hole, scorched by a Gamma ray blast equal to energy of a “million trillion” or billion trillion (I forget. Little diff, as I only have PFS sunscreen 20 at home), or blown to little bits by a supervolcano. vote here for your favorite!

    <

    p>
    Good news!  If a supervolcano then we get an ice-age.  Global warming solved!

    <

    p>
    I retired, ignorant to the other earth destroyers. Probably one was a big asteroid and probably another was global warming caused by Republican driving big cars.

    • I can dig that logic!

      <

      p>

      each new finding has an equal probability of making a forecast worse or better. Consequently, the preponderance of bad news almost certainly means that something is missing

      <

      p>
      If that were generally true, think how terrific it would be!

      <

      p>

      • Your candidate sinking in all the recent polls?  No problem!  Next poll’s guaranteed to have him on top!
      • Situation in the Middle East spiraling out of control after recent war and major power refusing to give up nuclear program?  Hello, breakthrough peace accord!
      • Your team on a 6-game losing streak right after a once-in-a-decade debacle in a 5-game NYY series, with most of your good players on the DL?  Look out playoffs, here we come!

      <

      p>
      I LOVE this Michaels guy!

      • (and how do you create those nifty little bullet points?)

        <

        p>
        – Can you with all the data at your fingertips tell me if Mr. Patrick will win or lose the primary?  You can’t and it’s because the feedback is mixed.

        <

        p>
        – Middle East.  There is a roadmap; Israel pulled out some settlements, then suddenly Hesbola kidnapped 2 soldiers.  Will there be peace in 50 years? 

        <

        p>
        – How much would you wager against the Sox making the playoffs?  Everything you own?

            • if 100 doctors say I have cancer, I’ll seek treatment.
            • If a learned sports writer tells me the Sox are statistically out of the playoffs contention, then I guess it’s football season.  Until then hope springs eternal.
            • And, if Mr. Rall tells me where to find html bullets, I’ll use them

            <

            p>
            But,

            <

            p>

            <

            ul>

          • if 100 doctors tell me that diet coke may cause cancer.
          • If the Sox are 6 games out in September and they’re going down the chute, or
          • If Mr. Rall tells me the Democrats will take back the House of Representatives.

            • <

            p>
            Then, those, my friends are hypotheses and, if those guesses are subject to any degree of uncertainty, then there has likely been historical data that supports and data that contradicts each learned guess. 

            <

            p>
            AND, there will likely be data to support and disprove up to the day of reckoning.  If you begin to see only data that supports your theory, statistically, there’s probably something wrong. 

            <

            p>
            You may not getting all the data.

            • Gary, you’re a smart dude, but that’s really nonsensical. If all the data point one way, then it seems that might mean something and you’d want to take action. That seems like common sense to me.

            • Science always works by hypothesis based on experimental results.  Nothing is ever logically “proven” or “disproven,” and someone who doesn’t like the hypothesis can always try to explain it away by other means.  (There are still those who believe we never went to the moon.)  That’s what the cigarette companies did for years and years, until even they had to admit that their product dramatically increases the likelihood of cancer. 

              <

              p>
              Eventually, those who cling to hypotheses that don’t match the data usually have to give in and admit that they were wrong.  The problem with global warming is that it’s all tied in with a lot of money, and with politics, so that process has taken far, far longer than it normally would if science were allowed to run its course.  (Which is why your point about Clinton and Kyoto is not relevant.  The fact that Democratic as well as Republican politicians caved on an issue tells you exactly nothing about whether the science is sound.)

              <

              p>
              (By the way, I know very little about global warming – this is more a comment on the nature of science and scientific inquiry than on the merits of one issue.)

              • Here I bulleted a number of points, which I think are not that controversial. I’d be interested to see whether you agree with some, or any.

                <

                p>
                But, as an example of my thinking on the scientific method and forcasting.  I don’t know much about climatology; I’m more familiar with finance and economics.  My current hypothesis is that the 1) the US will enter recession in Q4; and 2) the stockmarket (DJIA and S&P) will correct downward by as much as 11.8% in mid-September.

                <

                p>
                Yesterday, the purchase manager cited a statistic that correctly indicated 4 of the previous 5 recessions and it’s forcasting another.  Data to support my hypothesis.

                <

                p>
                Yesterday, statistic were announced that indicated  consumer spending strengthened and today, a statistic was issued that seems to show employment strength.  Hmmm…that’s contrary.

                <

                p>
                Housing is weak, interest rates are stable, and so on. Time will pass until enough statistics are incontrovertible, or until Q4 actual data proves me right or wrong. And, there’s plenty of data between now and then and I must remind myself not to simply look at the data I agree with to the exclusion of data that negates my theory. Probably, because the economy is complex, the data will be mixed and we won’t even know we’re in a recession until we’re halfway through it.

                <

                p>
                IF all data suddenly begins to support me, when in past months it has been mixed, then one of two things have happened:  1) I’ve ignored some negating data; or 2) My conclusion is 100% supported by data!  With econometric data the latter would be bizarre.

                <

                p>
                So, coming back around to climatology, which I know nothing about (And I can’t emphasize that enough!), I must resort to secondary logic rather than analysis of the actual data:

                <

                p>

                • I see many nonpartisan Politicians reject Kyoto, and wonder, could they ALL have been wrong?
                • I read about academicians from Virginia and MIT with (what appears to me anyway) as bona fide degrees and disagreement, and doubt that they are crackpots or shills
                • I see very little consensus on a solution to remediating excess CO2 and water and little consensus on what the effect of remediation would be

                <

                p>
                So, if you ask me to spend tax money on a big ship to escape earth to avoid an asteroid impact, I’ll pass.

                <

                p>
                And, for now, if you ask me to spend tax money and cause business to spend money to remove CO2 and vapor emission, which may do nothing beneficial, I’ll also pass.  Less speculative than a space rock, but still uncertain.

    • And I feel justified using those terms with him, although not (yet) with Lindzen.

      <

      p>

      Pat Michaels — Virginia’s state climatologist, a University of Virginia professor and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute — told Western business leaders last year that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists’ global warming research. So last week, a Colorado utility organized a collection campaign to help him out, raising at least $150,000 in donations and pledges.

      <

      p>
      Michaels is what you might call a science whore.

      <

      p>
      And as David pointed out, that is utter crackpot logic.

      • My issue with this response is simple.  This is science, which is conducted via evidence, experimentation, and published work.  If this guy’s published work is wrong, then it will be demonstrated to be so by other published works.  He will repsond, attempting to defend himself, etc., etc., etc.  It doesn’t happen fast, especially with something as complex as climate.

        <

        p>
        Who funded the resarch, while it is good fodder for conspiracy theory, is largely irrelevant.  That this is the line of attack against this guy– political not scientific– rather strongly suggests that the science is just not as certain as Al would have it.

        <

        p>
        The environmental movement over the years has been prone to hyperbole and absurd, hyperventilating overreaction.  “Wolf!” has been cried again and again.  Population, ozone, toxic chemicals; each were The Greatest Threat to Human Existence Ever. 

        <

        p>
        Now we have another Threat to Human Existence being procalimed by a movement with a credibility problem.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  Denunciations don’t persuade.

        • That’s actually not true.  When the cigarette companies funded studies on cigs and cancer, guess what.  When a drug company funded studies on the effect of its painkiller on the heart, guess what. 

          <

          p>
          I don’t know anything about this Michaels guy (other than my comment above that his logic seems, well, questionable).  But in general, sadly, funding sources do seem to matter.

          <

          p>
          I don’t disagree that, in time, if he’s making shit up or is misinterpreting, his positions won’t stand up.  But, as you say, climate science is tough stuff.  The public is not well served by studies of dubious pedigree.

  5. Maybe because when Al Gore states that there is no scientific dispute, it is a materially false statement.

    <

    p>
    Maybe he should say, there is no scientific dispute among the scientists with whom I agree.

    • Because while I can’t prove a negative, I am willing to claim that Al Gore never said “there is no scientific dispute”.

      • There is little, if any, scientific dispute over the fact that gases such as carbon dioxide are building up in the atmosphere as a result of human activities. There is no dispute that those gases can trap heat and affect climate. Scientists have also documented a warming trend of about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

        link

        • This is what Gore is referring to, from Science Magazine:

          <

          p>

          The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

          Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

          This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

          The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Archives