Friday, June 26, 2009
# Posted 6:12 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
This week, the New Yorker has a profile of James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, written by Elizabeth Kolbert. When I saw, something rang a bell. Two weeks ago, the Weekly Standard ran a piece on Hansen called The Man Who Cried Doom, written by Michael Goldfarb.
Hansen has a penchant for absurdity, so it isn't too hard to argue he's an extremist. For example, he wants the CEOs of ExxonMobil and other energy firms tried for "high crimes against humanity and nature." (Ever the attorney, my wife was quite curious about what counts as a crime against nature.)
Hansen also testified on behalf of six Greenpeace activists who caused $60,000 of damage to a coal plant in England. Ever the pragmatist, Hansen wants to shut down every coal-fired energy plant in the world in the next 20 years.
All right, so how is the New Yorker going to convince me that Hansen is actually a hero instead of crank? To the credit of Elizabeth Kolbert, she actually begins the article by compiling many of the same absurdities that Goldfarb catalogued. But she also devotes a lot of space to lavish praise of Hansen's scientific work by many of his prominent colleagues. He may sound like Chicken Little, they say, but his warnings up until now have been prophetic.
Goldfarb covers some of the same terrain (although his word limit was much lower). His piece quotes two other NASA scientists, including one of Hansen's former supervisors, saying that Hansen's ideological commitments have warped his climate models.
So what's a layman to do when confronted by dueling scientists? In some cases, the scientists with better credentials are all on one side of the debate. You certainly get that impression from Kolbert's article, which does not include any substantive criticism of Hansen's climate science.
Then I came across an interesting column in this morning's WSJ. Kimberly Strassel writes that the number of top scientists critical of global warming predictions has grown significantly.
In spite of what you hoped, I'm not going to end this post with any sage advice about how a layman can have informed opinions about matters scientific. But as someone used to studying the radical uncertainty of foreign policymaking, it's very interesting to watch a debate in which both sides believe they know something like objective truth.
UPDATE: I see Tyrone also has a post about the WSJ column mentioned above. One of the comments points to a post at TNR which says that Sen. Inhofe's alleged list of 700 scientists skeptical of man-made warming, cited by the WSJ, is a farce.
Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (2) opinions -- Add your opinion
A layman (or laywoman) can apply common sense to the problem of manmade global warming, as in:
1. The actual warming over the last century is small, about 0.8 degrees centigrade. So that's not the problem.
2. The projection of problematic warming all comes from computer models of the climate.
3. Those computer models have been cranking for 20 years now.
4. Ten years ago, those computer models all predicted that if CO2 continued to rise, temperatures would continue to rise too, and at an accelarated rate.
5. Over the past ten years, CO2 has continued to rise, but temperatures have flat-lined. No global warming since 1998.
Therefore, my common sense tells me
a. Those computer models need more work.
b. Maybe we shouldn't spend a trillion dollars based on what the models tell us will be the case fifty years from now. If they couldn't predict ten years out, they can't predict fifty years out.
I would add to the raptor that it is patently obvious, even to the casual observer, that the data is sketchy and problematic (as one example of many, the myriad adjustments made to raw data during the processing stage (ex. to compensate for the effect of urban sprawl on the sensors)decrease the reliability of the data).Post a Comment
If a scientist recognized this and still came out on favor of AGW as the most likely driver of the warming that has taken place, I'd be more inclined to give that opinion some weight.
But the opposite has happened. The scientists who publish articles supportive of AGW hide, deny or, astoundingly (but it appears often to be true), don't realize the serious shortcomings of the data.