Monday, August 13, 2007

Newsweaker

I put up a post about how Newsweek was sliming critics of global warming when it noted, on its cover, that they're "well-funded," and all that implies. (I'm not even sure if it's true, by the way.) I made two points--that these skeptics believe what they're saying, and that there's actually more money and glory on the other side.

Let me reply to a comment I received.

Points 1 & 2 are equally applicable to proponents of intelligent design, safety of smoking and even some holocaust-deniers (as well as to many other causes and beliefs) so I am not sure that shows anything. Since most persons lack the basic knowledge and familiarity to independently analyze science or other data underlying the hypothesis, we are left to interpret it through lenses that we can understand

You seem to be arguing about what's true or not, and which side to believe, which wasn't my point.

I'm simply saying that Newsweek is making a nasty (and irrelevant) charge when it implies that the scientists who speak out against global warming (or facets of it) are not sincere--that they're paid-for mouthpieces. This not only isn't true--they mean what they say--but, if Newsweek honestly wants to go down this path, I bet they'd find there's more pressure on scientists to toe the line, and more money to be had if they do.

- the qualifications of the speakers (though this is not much less confusing)

When you have highly imperfect information, this is generally worth looking at. And while Holocaust deniers and creationists and 9/11 truthers (and even less obvious cases, such as doctors giving sociological advice) are often acting outside their area of expertise, I don't think this is the case with many of the scientists Newsweek is attacking. (If you think they're referring to non-scientists, then you'd have to admit there are a lot more of those speaking out in favor of the global warming hypotheses.)

and the reputation for truthfulness (ideologues being less believable than others)

This is dangerous ground for you, since environmentalism is a highly emotional topic for millions and there is a huge superstructure of those (some paid, some free-lance) who regularly exaggerate threats. In fact, they've cried wolf so many times, that any claim by environmentalist groups should probably be treated with a little extra skepticism, which makes it harder for their serious claims to get through.

who pays and who benefits from research results,

That was why I made the point that there's a lot more money and benefits on the side of believing in global warming than being skeptical of it.

Imagine you're a religious person and you note all these new books out on atheism. If you want to attack the arguments on their merits, that's fine, but if you just want to condemn the arguments because you believe the authors did it for all that big atheist money (even if they were funded by some atheist foundation) you'd not only be making a cheap argument, you'd be avoiding the real one.

and what we can observe through our own talents (OK "common sense"). I do call recall Rachel Carson being denounced as a wacko- there is a history of environmental concerns being pooh-poohed by interests that had something to lose from environmental policies

It is strange that you've chosen to make your stand with Rachel Carson, since she got a lot of very basic things wrong and her critics got them right. To this day, her influence has people vastly overstating the dangers of synthetic chemicals. (Some or her present-day critics go so far as to say that millions have died because her followers supported DDT bans.)

7 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you done the homework on where the money is, and how easy it is to come by? Where do you think the "pro-environment" money is? I don't think that the Sierra Club or some other environmental organization really has big money for research (by the standards of academic scientists who have labs to support.) Even if you could show that more money has gone to "environmentalist" scientists --than to the skeptics, you would still have to examine what they must to do get the money. I.e., if you have to propose studies and go through a rigorous peer review process at the NIH, e.g., you would have to prove your scientific bona fides and your conclusion could not be up front. If you are a "skeptic," and you could walk into an oil company and say: "Give me some money, and I'll help show that global warming isn't really happening" and you get it -- your conclusions are suspect. When there are so many factors involved in evaluating the results, upfront bias is relevant. But I'm mostly interested in where this "Big Environment Money" is supposed to be coming from.

5:40 PM, August 12, 2007  
Blogger LAGuy said...

Let assume, counterfactually, there's no money in being on the side of those who say environmental threats are more serious, not less, than popularly believed, and there's no danger to your career in being a skeptic. People take stands for a lot of reasons, and when issues are important or controversial, strong feelings come out. People not funded by interest groups can, and regularly are, as biased as any others.

Most of the skeptical scientists are not being paid specially for their opinions, and there's certainly no organized movement among them to disprove global warming concepts. But let's look specifically at those who take money for their ideas (not the billions offered by governments or academia, or the many millions donated to environmental organizations, but the money sometimes offered by corporations who are believed to have a vested interest in being skeptical). My challenge still stands--show me a single one who's changed her ideas because (or even after) she took the money. Questioning motives is a cheap way of avoiding debate, and Newsweek, by noting the opposition is well-funded, shames itself.

6:04 PM, August 12, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You say "counterfactually," but where are the facts?

8:43 PM, August 12, 2007  
Blogger LAGuy said...

I almost don't want to respond to this, since it's a minor point about a side issue. It's also so obvious I didn't think anyone would disagree. (It's why I gave the example of a religious person questioninng the sincerity of pro-atheist books because he thinks the writers are doing it for the money--as if the money behind religion doesn't dwarf whatever money atheists may have behind them.)

Is no one who supports the many arguments involved in the pro (as it were) side of global warming getting paid? And these people who get paid, are their lives made easier or harder for taking a stance that agrees with the "consensus"?

8:57 PM, August 12, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The point is not that no one is getting paid -- but just that you haven't confirmed any facts about where and how the money really flows. I just don't believe that there is "Big Environment" money without someone laying out those facts.
It is always difficult to "swim against the tide," but that is a tide that is only recently developed -- and it does seem to be riding on accumulating facts, rather than on concentrated economic interests.

12:04 AM, August 13, 2007  
Blogger LAGuy said...

I really can't keep repeating myself, especially on tangential points. The people getting paid have money flowing to them, and even you admit it's hard to go against the flow.

Your second paragraph is unclear, at least to me--I can't tell if you're claiming the argument for global warming is better (irrelevant) or that the skeptics are bought and paid for (libelous).

1:57 AM, August 13, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here are three examples of people with advanced degrees who question the GW orthodoxy, but who aren't funded by anybody:

1. Freeman Dyson.

One of the most famous physicists of the past generation. You can read his comments here.

2. David Friedman.

On his blog, he has made a very good point: If someone says GW is a danger, and refuses to support the obvious best solution -- building many new nuclear power plants -- then they have proven that they are not actually concerned about global warming, but are simply anti-technology.

3. Jerry Pournelle.

Primarily famed as a science fiction writer and as a reviewer of new computer hardware/software, but he also has three advanced degrees and a lot of experience in reporting about science. He reported in detail about the "new Ice Age" consensus back in the 1970's.

Pournelle's position might be summarized as follows: Climate has changed many times over the years, and there was indeed a warming trend between 1800 and 2000. But we are still much colder than we were in 1000, when the Vikings pastured cows in Greenland.

He argues that we need a lot more research before we can conclude that (1) this isn't part of a normal sinusoidal trend, (2) this is bad, and (3) the cause is human beings' activity. Pournelle argues very forcefully that we shouldn't ignore this issue: we should indeed be spending money to gather more temperature readings and learn more about the situation. But we do not yet know enough to start "fixing" the problem, because if we enact Al Gore's agenda now, our "fixes" will turn out to be giant government bureaucracies that can't be dismantled even if we discover we were wrong about the science.

(This summary is based on various entries on Pournelle's blog, including this , this , this, and this.)

Pournelle recently commented sarcastically that he wishes an oil company would fund him -- he could use the money.

7:48 PM, August 13, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home

web page hit counter