Global Warming Conference Jul05

8/8/2019 Global Warming Conference Jul05

1/162

GLOBAL WARMING: ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS?

Richard FarsonWelcome to our conference on the controversial subject of global warming. Tolead us in this discussion are two ILF Fellows who have been following and

contributing to this scientific debate for many years and do not find themselves inthe mainstream of environmentalists' thinking.

Douglas Strain is well known to many of you, having been a key player in ourSchool of Management and Strategic Studies, and a longtime trustee of WBSI.Educated in science and technology at Caltech, he worked with a number ofoutstanding scientists before becoming the Founding Chairman ofElectroScientific Industries, a company rated as among the 100 best to work forin America. George Taylor, his colleague in leadership, is the State Climatologistfor Oregon, and a faculty member at Oregon State University's College ofOceanic and Atmospheric Sciences. He manages the Oregon Climate Service,

the state repository of weather and climate information. The author of more than200 reports, symposium articles and journal articles, George is past president ofthe American Association of State Climatologists. Since we have a number ofwell-educated environmentalists in our fellowship, we can expect a mostinteresting, illuminating, and possibly uniting dialogue as we examine the factsand possible interpretations of global climate change.

George TaylorIts an honor to be asked to lead this forum. I look forward to a lively interchange.Perhaps we can begin by establishing what I consider to be our fundamentalintent: to evaluate the degree to which. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)

is impacting and will impact the Earths environment locally, regionally, andglobally. The key questions seem to be (1) is AGW a current or potentialproblem? Why or why not? (2) If its a problem, what should be done about it?

Ill tell you my own opinion about AGW. After studying this issue for nearly 20years, I have come to believe that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have andwill continue to affect climate, with the greatest impacts being warming over high-latitude continental areas during winter and at night (including Siberia andCanada). In other areas and seasons, impacts will be much smaller. I believefurther that natural variations in climate have had and will continue to have muchlarger influence on climate than human-caused effects. That makes me agreenhouse skeptic, according to some people. I will make every effort to beevenhanded in this forum and not let my own biases get in the way a tall order!

A good starting point is the list below -- some commonly-held beliefs regardingAGW, mostly things we read in the media quite a bit. Following are responses tothose myths, in the words of Dr. Reid Bryson, Emeritus Professor inAtmospheric & Oceanic Sciences, Geography, and Environmental Studies at the


2/162

University of Wisconsin. Dr. Brysons statements were provided by Dr. FredSinger of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).

Have at it!

Statement1. The atmospheric warming of the last century is unprecedented andunique.

2. The warming of the past century was largely anthropogenic in origin.3. The most important gas with a "greenhouse" effect is carbon dioxide.4. One cannot argue with the computer models that predict the effect of a

doubling of carbon dioxide or other "greenhouse gases".5. Those who take issue with the idea that CO2 causes global warming are

suggesting that the CO2 measurements are wrong.6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon dioxide induced

warming of the climate is a fact.

Reality1. There are literally thousands of papers in the scientific literature with data

that shows that the climate has been changing one way or the other for atleast a million years.

2. It is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic inorigin, i.e., man-made and due to carbon dioxide emission. Wrong. Thatis a theory for which there is no credible proof. There are a number ofcauses of climatic change, and until all causes other than carbon dioxideincrease are ruled out, we cannot attribute the change to carbon dioxidealone.

3. The most important gas with a "greenhouse" effect is carbon dioxide.Wrong. Water vapor is at least 100 times as effective as carbon dioxide,so small variations in water vapor are more important than large changesin carbon dioxide.

4. To show that the computer models are correct we must show that theycan at least duplicate the present-day climate. This they cannot do withwhat could be called accuracy by any stretch of the imagination. There arestudies that show that the average error in modeling present precipitationis on the order of 100%, and the error in modeling present temperature isabout the same size as the predicted change due to a doubling of carbondioxide. For many areas the precipitation error is 300-400 percent.

5. The CO2 measurements are well done, but the interpretation of them isoften less than acceptably scientific.

6. I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote weretaken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include asignificant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate tohave a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discoverscientific truth.


3/162

Douglas StrainI am pleased that we have been able to have George Taylor lead this discussion.I have read a number of his papers and followed his career in the climate areaand highly recommend careful attention to his input. I am off for some additionalsurgery this week so will leave this session largely in his good hands! My warm

regards to all of you!

ParticipantFrom today's NY Times, excerpts from an article, Deciding How Much GlobalWarming Is Too Much by Andrew Revkin

After a decade of cautious circling, some scientists and policy makers are nowtrying to agree on how much warming is too much.

One possible step toward clarity comes today, as 200 experts from around theworld meet at the invitation of Prime Minister Tony Blair in Exeter for three days

of talks on defining "dangerous climate change" and how to avoid it.

The researcher running the meeting, Dennis A. Tirpak, formerly of theEnvironmental Protection Agency, said that experts always realized it wouldtake a long time for science's projections to be absorbed by society, but fewthought it would take this long.

"I've always been a believer that science and truth will win out in the end, hesaid. But I have a sense we might be running out of time.

It has taken this long not just because the "dangerous" question iscomplicated, but because it holds dangers in and of itself. If scientists offeranswers, as some have in recent days, they can be criticized for playing downuncertainties and intruding into the policy arena. If a politician answers, thatcreates a yardstick for measuring later progress or failure.

It is much easier for everyone simply to call for more research.

But some experts now say that by the time clear evidence is at hand, calamitylater in the century will be unavoidable. They say fresh findings show thatpotentially enormous environmental changes lie ahead.

"I think that the scientific evidence now warrants a new sense of urgency," saidDr. James E. Hansen, a climate scientist and director of NASA's GoddardInstitute for Space Studies.

A particular concern is the Arctic. An eight-nation, four-year study concluded inNovember that accumulating carbon dioxide and other emissions from humanactivities were contributing to the thawing of tundra and the retreat of sea ice.Recent studies of accelerating flows of ice to the sea in some parts of


4/162

Antarctica also point to the prospect of a quickening rise in sea levels in awarming world. Other scientists point to the prospect of intensified droughts andfloods.

With pressure building for resolution and fresh action, some countries and

groups of experts have tried to define a specific rise in earth's averagetemperature that presents unacceptable risks.

The European Union has set this threshold at 2.5 degrees of additionalwarming from current conditions. That was also the danger level chosen lastweek by an international task force of scientists, policy experts, businessleaders and elected officials led by Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican ofMaine, and Stephen Byers, a Labor Party member of the British Parliament.

Some scientists have criticized this approach, saying understanding of theimpact of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere remains far too primitive to

manage emissions and thus avoid a particular temperature target.

Others say the most logical response to the problem is to make societies moreresilient to inherent extremes of climate. "If we just significantly minimize ourvulnerabilities to the extremes which occurred during the last 250 years, we'll beO.K. for the next 100," said Dr. John Christy, a climate scientist at the Universityof Alabama who has long opposed cuts in emissions. As for rising seas, hesaid, You've got 100 years to move inland."

ParticipantSimple denial is obviously motivated by fear of undertaking the necessarychanges in policy and tech. From my own side, I think the sheer interest of tryingis itself not only worthwhile, but would lead to competitive new technologies.

One thing that holds back many of us from fully embracing the problem is thefuzziness in our knowledgein particular, feeling a need to know but feelingignorant about the range of expected climate changes that might occur withoutthe anthropogenic effects, a background, against which to overlap the humancauses, and consequences of actions. For example, it feels stupid to slow downglobal warming if we might be in for a major global cooling anyway.

And so, my question: Is there a good graphic or verbal summary of the range ofwhat might happen without humans, and comparisons to what is actuallyhappening (best guess) through human activity?

ParticipantIt was about 30 years ago that I saw some published data indicating that long-

term cycles suggest we are near the end of a 10,0000-year window of mildtemperatures after which we will be back to a few thousand years of ice. This is


5/162

independent of human activity either helping or hurting the situation. Cansomeone update this long-term outlook?

ParticipantDon Straus just entered a message into our ILF steering committee site,

reminding me of a comment that the distinguished climatologist Walter OrrRoberts, founding director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research inBoulder, made to us in the early eighties when he was on the faculty of ourSchool of Management and Strategic Studies, which I'll copy here, in the wordsthat Don remembers:

"We may not be scientifically accurate about the extent and harm of warming, butI can't think of any efforts to stop it that wouldn't also be helpful to our societyeven if warming itself is not in the immediate future.

I wonder if he would still say that. It's more or less the point that Doug just made.

Certainly there are plenty of people who would say that emission control isharmful to the world economy.

George TaylorDoug and Dick bring up good points, which are worth addressing. Dick's lastsentence begs a question: do emission controls bring significant harm to theworld economy? Where is the balance point between a clean environment on theone hand (which everyone would agree is a good thing) and an economy thatcan allow people not only to survive, but to prosper?

From what I can tell, a lot depends on the type of emissions being controlled. The"criteria" air pollutants (CO, NOx, Hydrocarbons, etc.) covered by the Clean AirAct have raised the price of vehicles, but not enough to hurt sales, and they havebeen a boon to the air quality in the US. Automakers and others say CO2 ismuch harder to control; in addition, natural emissions of CO2 are much greaterthan human emissions, so it's a very complicated issue. And it has beenestimated that the Kyoto Accord would cost $200 Billion in the US ($1 Trillionworldwide) yet would reduce global temperatures less than 0.1 degrees C.

Given that we don't have unlimited money, we need to ask ourselves how best tospend what we have. Emission controls or adaptation? Clean water or lowerCO2? Cleaner internal combustion engines or alternative fuels? Or somecombination?

I'll close by relating a story told by John Christy, State Climatologist for Alabama.For several years he was a missionary in Africa. He lived with poor African tribeswho cut down virgin tracts of hardwood forest and used the wood for heating andfuel. They also burned animal dung. The low-temperature burning caused thesmoke and gases to stay low, near the ground. Many people suffered fromrespiratory problems. It occurred to John that an elegant solution existed: provide


6/162


7/162

sold to the public at large, and knowing the answers to these questions will helpimmeasurably.

ParticipantI am so glad to meet Doug Strain again on line after so many years, and I do so

much miss Walter Orr Roberts in this topic. I am venturing to join, as ananthropologist.

In itself, it is alarming. The conference so far shows that we have a problem onwhich the greatest scientists are either at odds, or consider that current scienceis too primitive, and so reserve judgment. And in addition, the threats of dangerare fearsome.

Doug, there are two questions which I hope you will discuss. One: why don't webelieve? The other (just as difficult): Why are we so unwilling to change our life-styles? Our proposed remedies are so trivial compared with the alleged size of

the problem--like our old aunts in Hampstead who thought to improve the waterproblems of London by stopping the dripping taps.

Is there is room for Cultural Theory? Should we not recall Aaron Wildavsky'smassive study: 'But Is It True?' which was about the distribution of belief andskepticism in a population.

Cultural Theory has learnt several things about belief. For one, it doesnt dependmuch on evidence and logical proof, which means that worries about thecontradictions and ambiguities of scientists are not so important. For anotherthing, belief is a delicate, fragile thing.

For another, strong belief is not primarily a matter of individual capacity to haveconfidence. It is something that is built up as a side-effect of building satisfyinginstitutions. It is related to commitment. Difficult for modern persons to developthe strong beliefs of our forefathers when our societies are based on animpersonal technology of communication that makes no demands on ourpersonal commitment. We can leave a job, and no one minds; we can be jobless,and no one minds. The sense of helplessness and skepticism is pervasive in asociety of isolates. Belief is strong in closed communities, and made stronger bythe opposition from outside.

To know who believes and who doesn't believe, we need to examine forms ofsocial support and occupational life-styles. We also need to know how belief ismustered. It will be a matter for surveys and subtle questionnaires.

This line of thought doesn't help, but it takes the pressure off the scientists, andlooks to the WBSI item, 'behavioral sciences'. Grateful for your thoughts as ascientist on that.


8/162

ParticipantThis is not a suggestion for action but rather an idea that, if discussed, might leadto something better.

Ray: You have posed two sides of what to do about global warming:

Global warming's potential harm must be halted. Fighting global warming's potential harm is a must.

Many years ago when I was a trustee of the New York Science Academy wewere asked to help the city government smooth out a similar fight on the pro andcon elimination of what was then a large New York Naval Station. The cityofficials said they did not want to hear lectures from individual "experts" fromeach side -- they preferred to have the experts all in one room both to answerquestions from the city officials and to be prepared to reply to the opposingopinions of the other experts.

There were several results:1. It was a fascinating process that most city officials thought were helpful,2. Most of the experts hated it and refused to come to another such

experiment.3. The city officials chose not to use much of what they learned but chose

instead to use an "understanding" of the issues based on the preferencesof their more important voters.

But that was in the 20th century. In the 21st century there just might be somepreference for trying to understand and come to some agreement based onprobable results.

I am not pretending that this is so. But I am suggesting it might be a worthwhileexperiment to do the following:

We choose two or more members who have had enough exposure to theissue to be our "experts".

We allow self-choice of our members to be on each side of fighting globalwarming on the one hand and fighting the consequence of trying to slowdown global warming on the other.

One of our group is selected to facilitate the discussion to see if we canreach an understanding of and preference for a future policy.

ParticipantDon, there is some sort of disconnect between my #10 and your #12--besidesthe pleasure of having Mary Douglas appear in between them --Welcome!

Reading my #10 again, I think I can say it better. Let's try it this way:

It will be useful but difficult to separate these closely related questions:


9/162

1. There are both natural and man-mad causes for climate change. Lookingonly at the natural causes, for the moment, are the consequences formankind serious?

2. If the answer to (1) is yes, is there anything we can do that might be

effective enough to change the course of events?3. Now, looking at the man-made contributions to the problem, wouldcorrecting them make a real difference in the answer to #2? Stated moresimply, are the man-made contributions relatively trivial, or are theyimportant in the light of what is going to happen anyway?

4. Might the new technology and new jobs associated with whatever we canand should do make the whole undertaking an economic benefit ratherthan a cost?

Only then can we know the importance of working hard and quickly to reducepollution. We may think the answer is obvious, but whatever it is it will have to be

sold to the public at large, and knowing the answers to these questions will helpimmeasurably.

George TaylorThis is really getting to be funand thought-provoking. I too enjoyed Mary'scomments, as well as those of the rest of you. But where to begin?

Maybe with Ray's (#13). Ray, your logic is correct and you ask the rightquestions. The only real is problem is getting beyond question 1. The big disputein climate science is "what are the natural, and the human, contribution to climatechange?" For the last five years or so the IPCC has framed the answer using theMann "Hockey Stick," which suggests that recent warming is unprecedented andlargely of human origin. In the last year the Hockey Stick has been discredited inat least 3 scientific journal articles (see for example, ttp://www.climate2003.com).So maybe the human contribution is smaller than IPCC says.

In my experience, folks who evaluate historical data and attempt to createhistorical perspectives for current data (such as State Climatologists) are likely toascribe much smaller climate influence to human activities than are those whorun climate modelers. So depending on whether you're talking to a "dataevaluator" or a "model runner" you'll get a very different answer to the question.And that answer to #1 affects all the others.

ParticipantWhen my exceptional friend, Richard Farson, told me of an coming ILF

exchange Global Warming: Environmental Crisis? I truly looked forward to thedialogue. However, at the time of that invitation, I had not yet read MichaelCrichtons State of Fear. And, of course, I had not read conference comments(particularly Georges 1.1). Now, having read both, I enter this, and within that


10/162

context I would like to take a side-step, or better, a 180 degree turn, and start bylooking backwards.

(Michael, if you are reading thisand I hope you are and that we will hear fromyou), I start by saying I always enjoy Michaels writingsmany fabulous things.

My favorite was the writing in Travels, where he gave us his talk intended for thePasadena chapter of CSICOP (Committee for Scientific Investigations of Claimsof the Paranormal). And that gives insights into the Michael Crichton mind, andfor these exchanges information helpful in incorporating the important plea ofMary Douglas that we know who believes and who does not believe, andwhy.

Mary devalues her own observations when she says this line of thought doesnot help, but it takes pressure off of the scientists. To the contrary, Michaelsinsights and what Mary proposes helps tremendously! Further, I do not careabout taking pressure off scientists. They created their situation.

I do care about decisions by the people of the planet. Those decisions,fortunately, will not be made only by scientists.

Back to the script of Michaels talk he had planned to give to CSICOP. Hebegins by saying I do not expect to change anyones point of view by what I amgoing to say. Here, I do not, either. But I do hope my experiences in this field(they go back many years) will contribute to us arriving at a form of consensus onactions to address the problem of the earth getting hotter (for whatever reason).

Michael talks about the vast literature devoted to courting the muse. Weshould court as we are producing a work of literature that incorporates scienceand goes beyond.

Michael discusses the legitimacy of the phenomena he was addressing and thepractitioners of science. He concludes a portion of working scientists are alsofrauds. Whether we admit it or not, any person of academic standing holdscertain criteria that govern the kinds of references he will cite in his writing, andfor that matter, the kind of subjects he will write about in the first place.

In Comment 1.1 of this conference, George defines himself as a greenhouseskeptic. He presents beliefs (titled statements), which he ascribes to, I guess,people who are not greenhouse skeptics (me), and then in contrast defines for usGeorges reality. He lists six. Later, I would like to address each of the six,clear-cut observations of reality.

Michael quotes Bronowski, Science, like art, is not a copy of nature but arecreation of her. And then adds, Science offers a picture of the world, but itspicture is not to be confused with the underlying reality itself.


11/162

Then, to show the difficulty of defining reality, Michael chooses to describe(serendipitously for us) one George, (page 346 of the postscript). MichaelsGeorge is an even-tempered man. But then explains why it is impossible to

justify that statement about George.

Michael starts over. George is neat and orderlybut is he always neat andorderly? After a bit more dialogue, Michael gives up with that description ofGeorge. We go to a George usually neat and orderly. No luck.

Finally, George has gray hair. That falls apart with continuing analysis.

So Michael gets mathematically specific with George as six feet tallbut at whatage (e.g., global warming will heat the earth precisely how many degrees)? Wecannot say how tall George is. Michael next tries George as a maleand so on.

Michael then concludes, There are two points in this exercise about making

statements about George. The first is that every single statement we makeabout George can be contradicted. He explains why. The second point is thatof the statements about George, the most securely held are the least interesting.We are on much safer ground describing the simplest aspects.

In a later section, however, Michael concedes, Science is very good as far as itgoes.

Mary Douglas asks us to go beyond such. She points towards a way that couldwell yield valuable results from our effort.

I will read Marys comment again tonight, and think again about Georgeat whatheight?

But before that, to close closer to the present, Michael Crichtons writing appealsto me in a number of ways, one of which is as John Steinbeck does. My favoritewritings of Steinbecks are his East of Eden journal, writing about writing, andThe Log from the Sea of Cortez, writing about intellectual dialogue with himselfand with his friend Ed Rickettslike this one.

Michaels Travels, particularly the speech I quoted, is my favorite. And hisauthors message at the end ofThe State of Fearmakes it onto my listing offavorites. He bullets 25 statements on his views.

I agree with some and disagree with others. I agree with his 25th.

Everybody has an agenda, except me.

And if I do, I hope I have not yet disclosed it.


12/162

ParticipantA great beginning entry, Carl. You place this in a social, political andpsychological context which I, of course, think is perhaps the best approach tounderstanding the phenomenon of global warming. I can't wait for the nextchapter. It seems as if you and all the rest of the participants are entering this

dialogue eager for a confrontation but, at the same time, are willing to learn.

Mary, your questions were directed to Doug, but I hope it's OK if others of uspursue them. Your comment is so densely packed. I would love it if eachsentence were a paragraph.

Would it be accurate to think of the scientists as a community, being attacked bydisorganized, marginal outsiders, perhaps equally qualified, but nonethelessmarginal by choice? Then the attacks of these marginal outsiders, or at leasttheir disagreements, simply tighten and strengthen the beliefs of the scientists?And then, as these beliefs tighten, and the exclusion of the outsiders becomes

more pronounced, the outsiders views harden as well? It must be very difficultto have published ideas, worked to get grants, devoted two decades of study,developed a position which one has become known for, and then abandon it inthe light of new evidence. How often does that happen?

Michael Crichton has been vilified, called a menace and a crackpot and treatedas a know-nothing, but he has an M.D. from Harvard, taught anthropology atCambridge University, was a Fellow of the Salk Institute (the leading scientificinstitute in the biological sciences) and has written about twenty books, most ofthem requiring extensive study of some scientific area. But this book has broughtout such ad hominem attacks, I am amazed.

A few days ago, he and I were discussing how some people really enjoy the roleof attempting to clear up misconceptions, and are really good at it . New Yorkerwriter Malcolm Gladwell comes to mind. And we have some among our ILFfellowship. Is this possibly a personality trait?

Another point you make, Mary, is how trivial what we are being asked to do, suchas find alternative energy sources, or even less, conserve energy by drivingsmaller cars, compared to the disaster that is being pictured for us, with massivemigration or worse, widespread starvation and permanent flooding of our cities.But, of course, cutting emissions doesn't seem trivial to the corporations.

To get to the politics of knowledge, who are the short term winners and losers inthis drama? Isn't that what we have to know to be able to understand why weknow what we know about all this? (Isn't that a great sentence?)

ParticipantGeorge, your pointing to the difference between data analyzers and computermodelers may be the answer to the conflict.


13/162

George TaylorDick (1:16), I agree with you about Mary's pointfind alternative energysources, or even less, conserve energy." There are lots of good reasons toreduce our use of fossil fuels. I ride a bicycle to work every day, partly to

conserve resources (it's good for my health, too). Maybe fear of global warmingwill coerce people to do what they should be doing anyway...but as a scientist Iseparate the science and behavior issues.

(1:17) One problem I see is that scientists have gotten polarized. Now thatclimate science is no longer a backwater discipline (frankly, I miss the days whenit was!) and it's gotten tied in to money and politics, it's hard not to take sides. ButAGW is not a black-white issue; there's a lot of gray.

My experience is that, at least in academia, the "warming is a big problem" pointof view is WAY dominant. My intent has been "I'd like to present another side to

this issue" not so much "I'm right and they're wrong" but "here's another way tolook at things." As a result, I get accused of being "one-sided," but that's onlybecause I believe the "global warming is a problem" point of view has becomeubiquitous, and there's no need to present that viewpoint. In fact, when I givepublic talks I often hear people say "I've never heard this expressed before."

For a good read on the subject of science and scientists, I heartily recommendThomas Kuhn's 1962 classic, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. This iswhere the idea of a "paradigm shift" originated. Pat Michaels referenced this inhis book The Satanic Gases and showed how it applied to the climate changeissue.

ParticipantMary Douglas! My, it is good to hear from you again! As usual, your questionsare challenging.

One thing about "science" is that is that "belief" is based on theory backed byexperimental observation. Not too long ago the consensus belief was that theworld was flatnow that is no longer an issue. That the world is round is nolonger just a fact but has become an accepted belief.

The question of climate variation is much more complex and we are just at thebeginning of doing better than the old fashioned "Farmers Almanac" in whichmany people still have a "belief.

It was not until we got the satellites flying a few years ago that we were able tomake good scientific measurements of the energy derived from the sun andfound it was far larger than expected--some 7,000 times the energy used by"mankind". These measurements gave a different view of the anthropogeniceffect upon "global warming" but as you well know "belief" is a different process


14/162

but as scientists we have our own "belief" that the scientific method will prevail inthe physical world.

ParticipantI venture an idea about the issue of belief Mary poses, and I borrow from Joseph

Tainter's The Collapse of Complex Societies (and focus on some of what isimplicit in his perspective).

Elites own the infrastructure of basic services in a society: energy, transportation,banking, arms production. The cost of these tends to rise faster than the increasein GDP. The difference rapidly eats up surplus. The system overshoots.

Now, even if the elites see the problem coming, they respond not by shiftingbelief, but by reinforcing existing ideology *in order to extract the maximumpossible from the current state of technology and institutions*the idea beingthat with the spoils they can ride out the crisis.

Shifting an elite from one mode of production to a new onein this case theproposal being more democratic, less environmentally exploitativeis very hard.I read a Shell memo that said "we will shift when the business model for thealternative is mature", that is, deliver reliably and monopolistically at least asmuch profit, and then we can buy it. But not develop it. A task left unspecified,and thwarted by Shell policies.

To further complicate the problem anthropologically, the need for an elite toexpress status is very strong in human life (and primates in general, and outwardto other species). This need seems even stronger than a desire for long termsurvival.

Status leads to elites leads to ownership of infrastructure leads to exploitation ofthe population leads to increasing concentration of ownership leads tounwillingness to consider change.

ParticipantDoug, what's your view on the implications of the factor of 7000?

ParticipantHere is an interesting episode about change (there are always losers) from

Humboldt's Cosmos by Gerard Helferich:

On September 8, 1801, the travelers left Bogot for Quito, nearly five hundredmiles away...Westward, down the Cordillera Oriental the Magdalena Valley.Navigating narrow, twisting paths cliffs on either side, deep mud underfoot, andthick vegetation obliterating the light above, they descended through uninhabitedwoods and passed the towns of Pandi, Espinal, Contreras, and Ibague. Just ashe had earlier eschewed the easiest route through the rain forest, here Humboldt


15/162

forsook the relatively level way through interconnecting river valleys and electedto climb over the Cordillera Central via the treacher.ve thousand feet, was one ofthe most demanding trails in all the Andes. As they ascended through stands ofbamboo, wax palms, and tree ferns, punctuated with orchids, passion flowers,and fuchsias, the party was struck by driving rains. The animals sank deep in the

mud, and the men's boots were destroyed by bamboo spikes jutting from theswampy ground.

The travelers were met by a group ofcargueros, Indian porters who eked out aliving by strapping a chair to their back and, walking doubled over and supportingthemselves with a cane, conveyed Spanish mining officials over trails. Humboldt,the self-proclaimed republican, was infuriated to see such a degrading practice andto "hear the qualities of human being described in the terms that would be mule,"such as sure-footedness and an easy gait. Rather than mount the human beasts ofburden he and Bonpland (fellow traveler) elected to walk down the mountain to thetown of Cartego though their feet were bare and bleeding. To Humboldt this was

undoubtedly a noble, democratic deed, but the gesture did not impress thecargueros; to them, it was just an act of stinginess that deprived them of much-needed income. In fact the porters were vociferous in their objection to a new roadbeing built through the mountains, on the grounds that it would rob them of theirlivelihood.

ParticipantI hope we will be successful in going two directions at once in this conference.On the one hand examining the scientific findings so that we can build aninterpretation that is soundly based, and on the other reframing the questions sothat we examine them from the perspective of the behavioral sciences, as Maryhopes, so that we can understand the ways in which culture, politics, economics,psychology and other social phenomena play a role in creating and supportingbelief systems, and indeed shape the interpretations of data. We all like to thinkthat the scientific method has within it all the necessary safeguards against self-deception, but that may be a self-deception too.

George TaylorCarl, in response to 1:15: Note that I didn't define myself as a skeptic. I said"That makes me a greenhouse skeptic, according to some people." And the listof myths/truths was from Reid Bryson (though it's true that I don't disagree withthem). And I loved the "agenda" statement. At the beginning I debated whether totell you my current feelings about AGW or not, and decided on full disclosure. Iwould be interested in hearing concise statements on the opinions of the rest ofyou concerning this subject.

I write a column for the local paper, "Weather Matters"; it's published every otherweek. Whenever I write about climate change, I get lettersmost commonly"warmers blasting a skeptic," so to speak. In July, 2003 I addressed this, asfollows:


16/162

Weather Matters July 6, 2003Every time I write about climate change I get e-mails, personal letters, and lettersto the editor, many of them complaining about my ideas. Lately there has beenan especially active period, and. several friends have suggested I respond to

these writers. Theyve asked me:

Q. Why are these people so upset with you?

A. Some people feel really passionate about climate change, being convincedthat the world is warming because of human activities and that things are goingto get a lot worse unless we do something drastic. I believe that natural variationsin climate are much more significant than the human influence. That makes somepeople very angry.

Q. Are you angry with them?

A. No. I think disagreeing about scientific issues is fine. Im a firm believer infreedom of speech. Its just disappointing when people resort to name-calling orad hominem attacks. One fellow wrote about looking behind George Taylorscurtain. He implied that I was hiding truth behind a curtain and dispensing liesand deception on the outside.

Another writer called me a Luddite. These were bands of men, organized,masked, anonymous, whose object was to destroy machinery used mostly in thetextile industry in the early stages of the Industrial Revolution. The implicationwas that Luddites had an irrational fear and hatred of science and technology.

Im very much a computer guy, so it cant be that. I ride my bicycle to work everyday. Does that make me a Luddite? What does that have to do with climate?

Then theres my Old Nemesis, who laments that our State Climatologist doesntagree with her, and who spends a lot of time writing to me, writing about me, andtrying to convince my OSU colleagues that Im evil. Nem responded to one of mycolumns several years ago by starting a petition at OSU accusing me ofdistorting the facts. I dont hold a grudge against Nem, but I feel sorry for herand wish shed just get a life!

Q. Are you outside the mainstream of science?

It depends on what you mean by mainstream. There are lots of scientists whobelieve what the warmers say about the human influence on climate. There arealso LOTS of skeptics who believe, as I do, that the human influence is rathersmall. This includes the majority of the state climatologists, who are responsiblefor assessing long-term trends in their respective states and putting currentevents in historical perspective. Many meteorologists have signed statements


17/162

like the Leipzig Declaration, Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on GreenhouseWarming, Heidelberg Appeal, and Oregon Petition opposing global regulationsand economic penalties designed to stop global warming. Im not alone in myopinions.

But science is not about majority rules. There have been countless cases in thepast in which a popular opinion or scientific consensus was wrong. As afamous scientist once said, "Smart people can come up with very goodexplanations for mistaken points of view." That includes me! I may be wrongabout climate change!! I changed my mind once before and if I see enoughevidence Ill change my mind again.

For a long time I believed what the warmers say. In the early 1990s I startedstudying climate change more systematically, and became convinced that thehuman influence was much less significant than I had been led to believe.

Q. Are you objective and unbiased in your thinking?

A. Heck, no! Im a product of my own experiences, attitudes, and worldview. Itcolors everything I see and hear. And whether my detractors admit it or not,theyre biased as well. Rather than say Im right and youre wrong or Imobjective and youre biased, Id prefer that we say I respect your opinion eventhough it differs from mine. Lets talk about it.

Q. Bottom line?

A. Sometimes we get narrowly focused and out of balance, especially whenwere driven by a single issue. The older I get, the more I see the wisdom inmoderation in all things. I try to take a balanced view toward ecology bydefinition, the relationship between organisms and their environment. I reallylike the following quote:

Ecology is now a household word, but many of those who use it do notseem aware of the fact that by definition ecology is tied to economics, that manswell-being is tied to his being; that although preservation of an unsullied crystalstream, a purer atmosphere, a virgin tract of forest, or an unblemished landscapeare noble goals, they are not the noblest; the noblest is to provide man with thebasic stuff of his existencefood and housing, and meaningful work....

The author? Senator Al Gore, Sr.

ParticipantHullo, Carl and Ray, glad to see you two again. I find myself agreeing witheverybody. That is no good for a lively conference. We are so cool and judicious,we need to be polarized.


18/162

Carl, I always admired your intellectual toughness. But aren't you being too toughon the scientists? They are working in a century in which it is impossible to getunified support. First, their funding is wrong, too competitive. Second, the publicis too fragmented. To get a public that swallows what authority tells it, you wouldneed a society that is totally hierarchised, including the scientists. Is that what we

want?

ParticipantGeoffrey Lloyd, the Cambridge classicist, made a thought-provoking comparisonof Greek and Chinese science in the 4th century. Each Greek practitioner inmedicine had to finance himself by charging his clients. It was a democraticsociety; medical science was competitive, individualistic, and strong in PR. Bytotal contrast, Chinese science was organized in powerful institutions, generouslysubsidised by the state.

Participant

Which system produced the best science? Geoffrey Lloyd doesn't say, but thereseems to be a strong case for saying that the Chinese understanding of thehuman body was way ahead of the Greek.

David Hull's book, Science as Social Process, is devoted to showing theindependence of science from social pressures, but his historical evidence showshow much modern science is attracted to work on whatever the biggest researchfoundations will support. It stands to reason. We wanted a free market in ideas,and we got it. We can't be surprised that belief won't be bidden by facts.

George Taylor mentioned 'paradigm change'. Thomas Kuhn suggested that itcan't happen until the dominant generation dies out.

ParticipantJust like trying to 'describe George', it is difficult to describe modern science.Richard Rorty saw it as a community, the late Robert Merton as competingindividuals, each claiming desperately to be the first one who discoveredwhatever it is.

George TaylorMary, I love your writing. I can see why the other folks here regard you so fondly.

(1:28)"George Taylor mentioned 'paradigm change'. Thomas Kuhn suggestedthat it can't happen until the dominant generation dies out." Kuhn also said it'susually younger scientists or people new to the field, who come up with the"paradigm-breaking" ideas. One example I'd cite would be Alfred Wegener, ameteorologist (!), who came up with the idea of continental drift. It was soundlyrejected by entrenched scientists for decades; but Wegener proved to be right.


19/162

After more than 30 years in a career, at age 57, it may be too late for meperhaps my biases are just too deeply ingrained to change. How about the rest ofyouare you able to change your way of thinking, on this issue or others?

Sometimes I wonder who will comprise the "next generation of climate change

thinkers," and what they'll propose. One bright new light in the field is RogerPielke, Jr., a young man who has a background in math and political science,and whose father is state climatologist for Colorado. I urge you to read some ofRoger's writings:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/index.htm

lParticipantGeorge: Nice bit of writing and thinking in your # 25. I am a trustee of the Collegeof the Atlantic which, as far as I know, is the only college which states that itseducational process is HUMAN ECOLOGY. I like your definition of ecology andthink you may be interested in mine: THE SPECIALTY OF BEING AGENERALIST.

I bring this up as pertinent to Marys #26: "I find myself agreeing with everybody.That is no good for a lively conference. We are so cool and judicious, we need tobe polarized."

Based on my work as a Human Ecologist I would argue that in today's complexworld there is need for an entry period in any complex discussion where peoplerefrain from being polarized until there is some agreement on the definition andfacts related to the issue being discussed. If this can be accomplished first, thenthe polarized part of the process is likely to be much better.

My colleagues here are tired of my saying this: IT IS NOT EITHER/OR but ANDALSO.

ParticipantGeorge: After more than 50 years in a career, at age 83, it may be too late forme.

Am I able to change my opinions? Hell yes! I do it every day!

Participant

Here is what I have learned from being on the road.

1. Everybody has an attitude and nobody has information. It appears thatopinions on the environment are received knowledge. People adopt what theyregard as approved viewsviews shared with their friends and social groupbutthey have no information at all to back up these beliefs. I mean NO information.Zero. They don't know what global warming is; they don't know how muchwarming has occurred; they don't know why any controversy exists about
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/index.htmhttp://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/index.htm


20/162

warming; they don't know that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, or the mostimportant; they don't understand the notion of CO2 driven climate change vs.other greenhouse gases such as water vapor; they don't know about computermodels of climate and they have never considered any question of the validity orthe verification of such models; they don't know about satellites vs. ground

temperatures; they don't know about urban heat bias; they don't know aboutvariations in sunpsots...They know...Nothing.Nothing at all.They only know that if you disagree with global warming you must be wrong.And a bad person besides.

2. People cant think about the environment except in political terms. This isspooky to me, and it gets spookier as time goes on. Every single interviewerpoints out that my views agree with the Bush administration. When I say that thatis an accident and that my task is to follow the data, they look askance, as if I am

trying to trick them. They then ask my views on Iraq. Did I support the war? Whathas this to do with climate change? Apparently, everything.

The notion of following the datathe notion that the data is politically neutralthe notion that science is properly apoliticalthe notion that policy may bepolitical but the underlying knowledge should not be politicalthese are alldifficult concepts for people in today's polarized world. You can see the struggleon their faces.

However, these attitudes are in line with the approach taken byenvironmental groups, who have consciously set out to discredit me by termingme a neocon. (I know this because friends send me copies of internal emailsfrom within environmental groups.) Apparently these groups can't imagine thatsomeone could just look at the data, either.

3. People do not know even the most fundamental principles of science. AGerman review of my book mentioned that a recent poll of climatologists foundthat 75% agreed with global warming and 25% disagreed. I point out to reportersthat those who disagree include full professors at major universities, importantfigures in their field.

The reporters say, "Yes, but the great majority disagrees with you." Iremind reporters that science is not a popularity contest. It is not a matter of avote, like an election. It is a matter of who is more accurate in describing theworld. In science it doesn't matter if 99% of climatologists believe in globalwarming, a single investigator can still overturn the majority. The history ofscience is in fact the history of a single person overturning the majority.

To this, reporters and others just look blank.


21/162

And then they say, "Yes, but everybody disagrees with what you aresaying..."

4. We have entered an Orwellian world without memory. In my view, one ofthe most important reasons for caution and skepticism are the intensity of

conviction about global cooling and the coming ice age that characterized climatescientists in the 1970s. But this simply can't be made to register with modernpeople. The 1970s might as well be the 1870s or the 1770s. The past is merelyboring, like a parade of outmoded fashions. There is no connection between pastand present.

5. We have People flounder in the assessment of risk. They don't know howto do it; they have received no education about it; the notion of cost-benefit isstrange and exotic; the notion of cognitive illusions in which 100% safety isirrationally required strikes them as irrelevant to any discussion. It is clear thatthey have never received any sort of training in this area. It makes it difficult to

discuss the allocation of resources or the notion of competing risks that need tobe addressed in a society.

In summary, I experience a widespread joining of ignorance and belief whichyields a close-minded conviction akin to that of fundamentalist religious belief. If Iwere not so irrationally optimistic, I might fear greatly for the future. But let's notconsider that.

What should be done to resolve this issue?

I think the furor over future climate only exists because we have no goodmechanisms to verify information. I talk to audiences about the Mann "hockeystick" graph, a centerpiece of the 2001 Third Assessment Report but nowdiscredited. In the words of UC physicist Richard Muller, "How could thishappen?" The answer is, because climate research does not receive the kind ofscrutiny we insist upon for drug testing (or think we insist upon.) If we had stifferstandards climate fears would not now exist in the society, because unverifiedmodels would not be allowed as sources of information for setting policy.

First, what would a double-blind testing of climate models look like? Could it bedone at all?

Second, what would true outside assessment of the field look like? Clearly theNAS can't do it; they have weaseled out in the past where climate is concerned.And most likely the outside assessment could not include any academicscientists at all, because a negative report might have the effect of collapsing theentire field, now richly funded. What group, then, would do the assessment?


22/162

Third, what about labeling? We want our food labeled with its contents clearlymarked. Why not research? Shouldn't we have a stamp that says: "ResearchEmploying Unverified Computer Model?" Or would that prejudice the reader?

Participant

Michael: I have no argument with you with regard to a general ignorance ofglobal warming by the voting citizen. Or with any number of other issues for thatmatter. Your statement was of course well written and interesting.

Where I became disappointed was at the end, following: "What should be doneto resolve this issue?" For our group here, I don't think we are concernedprimarily with better scientific tools for resolving the issue of global warming.Rather I think it is how to educate citizens with the best information that theordinary citizen can understand. This is the major missing ingredient for ourdemocracy in this, and all other issues of political importance.

Of course, one answer might be: Don't trust the average citizen to make gooddecisions involving scientific issues. But I would answer this very rationalstatement with "I don't trust either the current ways and people where suchdecisions are made.

Perhaps the average citizen is incapable of reaching good decisions in complexissues. But if so, then perhaps democracy is also incapable of surviving in the21st century. But it is my understanding that we are not accepting that statementand are spending our time and energy here not only in reaching better decisionsourselves, but in seeking ways for educating the average citizen to do so. Even ifthere were better science focused on climate, how should a decision on action bemade and who should make it?

At least that is my chief reason for finding this effort here of great importance.And why I would hope we will gain new ideas from you within that parameternot only better science but better ways of what action(s) to take. At least that ismy personal focus. I have not exchanged these ideas with anyone else.

ParticipantThe idea of an "Unverified Computer Model" is interesting. If man's contributionto global climate change is set aside, for the moment, as trivial, and we try tomodel natural climate change -- an effort that I expect has been undertaken bymany -- how would one go about verifying the model?It would take awhile, wouldn't it?

George TaylorRay - (1:35) It would take a long time and you could never be sure of youranswer. You might get a really good match with measurements, but maybe yougot the right answer for the wrong reasons. And if you were trying to match upwith something like "average global temperature" (what the Hockey Stick shows)


23/162

it would be futile--there is no such thing as "average global temperature." Thereare an infinite number of averages of weather station data, and these may ormay not be representative of locations in between. Or over the oceans. Or in themountains.

The only way I would even consider a model "calibrated" is if its output werecompared to every available measurement separately. I wouldn't requite it tomatch every measurementmeasurements can be wrong, too!but it wouldhave to do a pretty good job of simulating the overall distribution.

Another problem: climate is a lot more than temperature. There's precipitation.And winds. And humidity. And snowfall. As tough as temperature is to model, theothers are harder.

I give a lot of public talks (mostly to intelligent lay people). One analogy I usewhen someone asks about climate models is like this: suppose I wanted to build

a mathematical model to predict my wife's moods. Cindy and I have beenmarried for 30 years, so I consider myself a "Cindy expert." I can identify thingsthat put her in a good mood (a backrub; a cooperative kindergarten class; a visitfrom one of our kids; a good night's sleep; an afternoon walk; the day of the week(Sunday is very good). So I create a mathematical model based on those thingsand I measure those variables and her mood for awhile and develop cause-effectrelationships (using multivariate analysis or principal components or wildguesses). I use those to calibrate my model. I tweak some of the factors so thatthe model results match the observed. And then I run the model into the future.

But a couple of problems arise. What if I left out some variables? What if myassessment of her moods was wrong from the beginning? And what if some ofthe key variables cannot be predicted? I don't know in advance if herkindergartners will behave. Our daughter may pop in at any time. Lots of thingscan interrupt sleep. And so on. In the end, all I can really predict is the day of theweek, so my prediction is heavily weighted to that.

Would you trust such a model? I wouldn't! Now substitute "climate" for "Cindy,"and "CO2" for "day of the week" and "solar radiation, clouds, PDO, etc." for "theother variable we can't predict," and that's about where climate models are. CO2dominates, and the other stuff gets left out. With nothing to temper its effects,CO2's impacts are probably overstated.

Does that make sense?

George TaylorDon--ref. 1:31: "I like your definition of ecology and think you may be interestedin mine: THE SPECIALTY OF BEING A GENERALIST." Amen. I have a friendwho says "There are two kinds of thinkers in the world: systems thinkers andpiece thinkers." The former are the ones who see patterns and generalities and


24/162

"big picture" viewpoints. The latter are the detail people. You and I are incategory 1. And I have a son who's a 2. John is way smarter than me in his field,but it's a very narrow field. He needs someone like me to show him the relevanceof what he does. But people like him make true breakthroughs in science andtechnology and other fields, so I need him. It takes all kinds...

ParticipantWhile reading a few days of comments here the words to Merry Minuet poppedinto my mind. The song was recorded in the late fifties by the Kingston Trio.

They're rioting in Africa,. They're starving in Spain.There's hurricanes in Florida, and Texas needs rain.The whole world is festering with unhappy souls.The French hate the Germans. The Germans hate the Poles.Italians hate Yugoslavs. South Africans hate the DutchAnd I don't like anybody very much!

But we can be tranquil and thankful and proudFor man's been endowed with a mushroom shaped cloud.And we know for certain that some lovely daySomeone will set the spark off and we will all be blown away.

They're rioting in Africa. There's strife in Iran.What nature doesn't do to us will be done by our fellow man.

I'm a skeptic here. I don't see that either side has nailed anything down. We canbe certain that the climate will change in the future. There are only twopossibilities, it will either get colder or warmer, so whichever you pick, the oddsare 50-50.

More interesting to me is that we are polarized on the issue. I suspect that atleast half the people have no stance on the issue.

There have always been doomsayers and doomnayers, each with their clamoringGreek chorus. I remember the global freezing claims back in the 70's, but I don'tremember there being such a hullabaloo about it. I don't remember that peoplewere so angry about their differences of opinion in general, but maybe they were.Vietnam sure aroused some fierce passions. Do people simply need 'burningissues' over which they can contend?

ParticipantI like Donald Strauss thought (1.31) that polarized argument should bepostponed til some common basis of agreement has been established. Right!I am shocked at George Taylor suggesting he may be too old to change hismind, (1.25), when he is only 57! Crazy!


25/162

May I offer an answer from Cultural Theory to Michael's puzzlement (1.33) onfinding that views on the environment are highly politicised? According to thistheory (now discussed fairly internationally) our views of nature are used as kindsof brickbats for hurling at the opposition in any moral dispute. When hard pressedby opponents in an important argument, each side will have resorted to its

clinching argument, 'This is how nature is'.

This is the first step in making the environment a political issue; it always hasbeen, so habitual.

Second, each kind of social organization tends to develop its own collective'myth' of nature. The myth justifies a way of life, a system of organizing, a theoryof good and bad behaviour.

Third, to go further than that, we, the CT people, have tested it by postulatingfour main kinds of social organization each sustained by its distinctive myth of

nature. This formula has been basic to Michael Thompson's work on risk in thelate seventies and eighties. It underpins the work that Aaron Wildavsky and I didon risk (Risk and Culture, 1983)

Hierarchical society, the myth is that nature is benign, but needs protection.The society based on competitive individualism has the myth that nature is verystrong, you can do what you like; it always swings back in the end. This is helpfulto the entrepreneur and big business.

The closed sectarian enclave has the myth that nature is fragile, about tocollapse. This is a marvellous weapon for a system that only keeps going byattacking outsiders for their immorality.

The isolates, who are not caught up into any of the above, don't have any firmview, mostly skeptical about theories; we call their attitude 'Fatalist'. I see thewhole scenario ofState of Feardrawn out in these terms, one reason why I lovethe book, and would like to see reviews of it.

More on these lines to come soon.

ParticipantThere is plenty of reason to be skeptical, Kip, but just because temperatures canonly go up or down doesn't mean that you can base your skepticism on yourclaim that the odds are 50-50. Those are the odds on a coin toss, but not onother questions, certainly not on climate. The odds have to be calculated morelike the odds on a horse race, where history, condition, jockey, weather,competition, etc. are factored in.

Douglas StrainI have been off line but I see that it is not only the "globe" that is "warming up"!


26/162

Going back to 1:4 and Doug Carmichael's plea for a background piece giving a"feel" for the potential range of change that might be expected with or withoutanthropogenic effects, I would cite the chapter 24 on Global Warming in BjornLomberg's book entitled The Skeptical Environmentalist. I got into this wellresearched book last year and it changed my "hat" from green to my hereditary

Scotch plaid! George Taylor probably has a better reference but the content ofthis one did change my belief and took away a lot of guilt about my "desecration"of our environment!

ParticipantI take your point, Richard, though it seems that with respect to climate we aren'tlikely to be much more successful in our wager than if we were to follow theadvice of handicappers on horse races.

We could always apply Cui Bono.

George TaylorMary--(1:39): I only suggested that I may be too old to change my mindmostlyas a teaser and as a way of getting everyone to confront their own biases. It'snever too late old to change one's mind. Besides, I'm a very young 57!

ParticipantKip, as I see it, the difficulty in making decisions on global warming comes lessfrom the inadequacy of climate research than it does from the workings of thepolitics of knowledge. Granted, we don't know everything we might like to know,but to dismiss the pursuit of this knowledge is to give in to the political power. Ifwe paid as much attention to the social and behavioral problems raised as we doto the climate sciences, where they conduct literally thousands of studies on thisone subject, we might be less likely to throw in the towel. That's why I think thisconference is valuable: it treats the sociology and politics of knowledge asequally important to the hard science involved.

Douglas StrainOur topic is in the news this week! The latest issue ofThe EconomistFeb 5thcover features "Science, politics and climate change" The article on page 73opens with a quote from our own Michael Crichton and his book State of Fear.The two-page article closes with a paragraph titled "The death ofenvironmentalism?" and ends with "Despite the arrival of Kyoto, the debate anddissent of recent weeks suggests that the treaty has not produced the world ofself confident greens and smothered critics feared by Dr. Crichton. In fact, thecontrary seems to be true." Our WBSI topic seems to be right on target!

ParticipantTo lend support to the comment Doug just entered, today's NY Times carries afront page story about the same report, issued last fall by environmentalistsMichael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus titled "The Death of Environmentalism."


27/162

The report suggests that the movement is not meeting its goals. Fuel was addedto this fire by the failure of big spending by major environmental groups such asthe Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters to unseat PresidentBush. Shellenberger and Nordhaus argue that the effort should be to broaden theappeal to include other progressive issues. Leading figures in the environmental

movement are critical, of course.

The article raises the subject of Ecopolitics, and plays right into the issues we aredealing with in this conference. One leading environmentalist, Bill McKibben,who wrote the classic global warming text, The End of Nature, back in 1989, iscircumspect:

"But Mr. McKibben, who called Mr. Shellenberger and Mr. Nordhaus 'the badboys of environmentalism,' said their data showed that the kind of politicalsupport the movement had in the late 1970's had come and gone. 'The politicalecosystem is as real as the physical ecosystem so we might as well deal with it,'

he said."

For the full article click on the URL below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/national/06enviro.html?oref=

ParticipantThe Economistarticle Doug cites is directly targeted on the issues of thisconference and I would urge all to read it. The global warming dispute is, ofcourse, rather well known and well documented. What seems to me to bemissing in the international debate is a deeper analysis of the ways suchenvironmental disputes occur and how they might be moderated. The kind ofcultural theory analysis that Mary brings to this conference, as well as analyticcomments made by others here, open the doors to such an understanding ofthese disputes. Perhaps it is at that level that we can make the bettercontribution. Meanwhile, here is the URL for the Economistarticle:

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3630425

Participant'Oh, to be seventy again! So the octogenarian Count Fontanelle used to exclaim

whenever he saw a pretty woman. I am only 83, and tempted to rebuke GeorgeTaylor for boasting of his youthfulness, to me he seems very young, only 57 anda very young 57 at that! (1,25, 43). He believes that human intervention is not soresponsible for climate change. It is a change of opinion; he used to believe thereverse. Was it information that made him change his view, or mature reflection?Or did he change his friends as his career advanced? Did he find himself in theElite who are generally optimistic about being able to get away unharmed?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/national/06enviro.html?oref=http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3630425http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/national/06enviro.html?oref=http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3630425


28/162

George, are you old enough not to mind my questioning you? You can now havea conversation with someone who holds the opposite view, and calmly tell themthat you don't agree but you respect their opinion. This is as provoking to thelocal anthropologist as Michael Crichton's belief (1.33) in 'politically neutral data'.

My first question is about anger. Surely the conversation you imagine can onlytake place in a situation strictly segregated from everything that matters to youpersonally. Could there possibly be some situation in which the disagreementposes a threat to the things you love?

In that case it won't be any use my reminding you to keep calm. So I amsupporting Michael's statement (1.33) that the extraordinary thing is the heatgenerated by the global warming debate itself.Who feels threatened by the disagreement? What starts skepticism? In thisconference we are being very frank. Douglas Strain almost admits to a sense ofrelief when he changed his opinion, becoming a skeptic took away guilt about his

'desecration' of the environment (1.41). I love it; most of us really don't want tosubscribe to terror and disaster. This admission narrows the question.Not, who feels threatened?But, who doesn't?Not, who has a need to feel angry, or hate?But, who is free of such needs?

The answer must surely involve the eco-skeptics, the ones who feel they canstay out of the fray, sufficiently secure, uninvolved.

Reading State of Fearslowly again, the person who most grips my imagination isthe comic Professor Hoffman, who won't stop talking about his Ecology ofThought. He is a crashing bore. He is me in my last comment, the one about fourtypes of culture arising from four types of organisation. I am going to be verycareful in future, and start again.

ParticipantDick, after reading this conference, and finding myself and my profession in

parody in State of Fear, I have had an idea.

The book is perfectly rounded in its scenario of performers in context of thenuclear risk debates of the 80's. They can be neatly projected into the book thatAaron Wildavsky and I wrote, Risk and Culture (1982).

Michael Crichton is in a major way responsible for the way we see our theme.Moreover, we want to pay him honor. So why don't those of us who have readthis great book make an effort to identify ourselves as characters in it? A gender-free identification would be nice, Doug Strain as Kenner, the lead person; Dick asSarah, general facilitator. I am Prof. Hoffman, (but you won't hustle me off the


29/162

stage). I can solve my problems of presentation by relating each belief position toits cultural setting within the book.

Oh dear! Some of us would have to agree to be the baddies. So perhaps it is notsuch a good idea.

I put it back.

George TaylorMary--(1:48): By all means, ask me anything you want. If I don't have an answer,I'll just make something up.

Just kidding. But regarding how my own opinion changed, I spent the first 20years of my career as an air quality scientist, mostly in southern California. Ididn't think much about climate change, but mostly just went along with whatseemed to be the prevailing view: that human activities impacted climate

significantly. Since I didn't consider myself an expert in the field, I didn't publiclyexpress an opinion.

In 1989 I moved to Oregon and accepted the job as State Climatologist. I didn'tknow much about climate, but had a strong background in computers, had beeninvolved in service-oriented positions, and had run a small business, so theyhired me. That's when I started studying climate diligently.

In 1992 Pat Michaels published Sound and Fury. I read that and saw a verydifferent viewpoint on climate change. I began to assess Pat's viewpoint in thelight of what I was seeing in the Pacific Northwest and around the world. Themore I looked, the more I confirmed, in my own mind, what he was saying.

In 1996 I "came out" and gave a seminar in my department on my viewpoint onclimate change. My colleagues treated me like a leper, or a criminal. One said"George, you're a very dangerous man." Huh? "You give a lot of public talks,and if you tell people there isn't a problem, they won't do anything." Such as?"They need to get rid of their SUVs and drive less." Wait a minute, Rick, youdrive a car every day; why don't you ride a bike like I do? "Once everybody elsedoes, I will, too." Mind you, not every "adversary" is like that, but he's rathertypical of many folks in this community. Most arent as honest as he.

I started writing my newspaper column in 1999. As I wrote earlier, I get plenty ofhate mail when I write about my point of view on climate change. I'm surewarmers get similar grief from people who think I'm right. Of course, there's no"right or wrong" in this issue but a lot of shades of gray, but in the minds of many,on both sides, it's an either/or issue.

Mary, it used to really bother me when people called me names. I WANT peopleto like me. But in the last three years I've lost my mother and my father-in-law to


30/162

death, gotten cancer myself and survived, seen my mother-in-law get cancer andsurvive, and saw my wife almost die after her colon burst six weeks ago. Thesethings are WAY more important to me than climate change, which pales incomparison.

I'm a husband, a father, a Christian, an elder in my church, a surfer, a musician,a runner, a bicyclist, an artist...and a climatologist. Only a portion of my identity iswrapped up in my profession.

And I love the quote from the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Richard Feynman,paraphrased: "The best scientists are always trying to prove themselves wrong."If you're able to help me prove myself wrong, you're doing me a favor andmaking me a better scientist.

So have at it!

Participant22:39--Mary, I like the idea of playing roles in Michael's book. Maybe we couldbreak through to an understanding of how to put the sides together. I just wisheveryone had read the book.

I actually have been a character in a couple of Michael's books and movies. I'vebeen portrayed by Dustin Hoffman and Michael Douglas. Sort of. So I havealready identified myself with a character in Michael's new book. I'm Peter Evans,the clumsy, wimpish attorney who changes his mind and becomes less of avillaineven a kind of accidental hero. At least he gets the girl, or so it wouldseem. So I can't be Sarah. She is much too effective and disciplined to be me.And I'm like Peter in the sense that I have less of a commitment to either side inthis dispute than others in this conference, and so it is not all that unsettling toentertain the opposite position to the one I had been holding.

My favorite character in the book is yours, wild-eyed Prof. Hoffman. He makesthe case not just against anthropogenic global warming, but the state of fear inwhich we are continually being held, as a way of governing or manipulating us,but the fears they sell us are largely unfounded. Terrorism is another goodexample. I guess there is reason to fear those who would hold us in fear, but notthe things they scare us with. I think that is Michael's main point, so you get to bethe real hero of the book.

ParticipantA message from Carl Hodges who reminisced about the impact that climatologistWalter Orr Roberts had on all of us in WBSI's School of Management andStrategic Studies. Walt conducted what he called the Climate Club, involvingsome of our key participants. Carl emailed me the report Walt and the othersprepared that first opened our eyes to the possibility of CO2 being a factor in


31/162

global warming. For those of you who are interested in the history of this andwould like to turn the clock back 22 years, here is the link:

http://www.wbsi.org/ilfdigest/msdocs/3FEB05.Climate_Club_Report.doc

ParticipantThank you, Richard and George, for your personal answers. No wonder youneither of you feel swept by anger about the dire fate of the environment. Neitherof you belong to an enclave.

An enclave is a sect, but not necessarily a religious one. It is a group who are inthe minority, have separated themselves off from the rest of the world. Theystart their separatism because they morally disapprove of the mainstream. Oncethey have committed themselves to their eccentric principles they are faced witha problem.

How to keep together? It is difficult to keep the loyalty and muster the support ofany set of people, but if they are cooperating on a daily basis as a small closedgroup, it is very much harder than we would think. They tend to make rules abouttheir behavior to each other. They need to fend off jealousy so they make a ruleof egalitarianism. They are all equal, they need leaders and decisions, but theirfirst rule has made leadership impossible.

They next start to compete with each other covertly; if they are a religious sectthey can transfer the decision-making to God in various ways (casting lots,treating the Bible as an oracle, having a totally charismatic leader who cannot bechallenged because he communicates directly with God, and so on). We havestudied many different types of enclaves.

Secular enclaves can cast lots but they can't resort to divine decision-making sohave to find other ways to mask leadership, or do without. They get to beobsessed by fear of defection of their members, watch each other for signs ofdisloyalty, and denounce each other for back-sliding. It becomes a veryuncomfortable place to live in; they wish to love one another and control jealousy,but neither wish gets much chance in these circumstances.

Has any one here ever been in a closed, idealistic, egalitarian community? If so,have you stayed with it for long? I would be glad if you could tell us if I have got it

wrong.

ParticipantMary, you're such a pleasure to read.

Whether there really is a problem or not, a lot of people directly depend on therebeing one for their income. Scientists, authors, opinion writers, politicians, etc. it
http://www.wbsi.org/ilfdigest/msdocs/3FEB05.Climate_Club_Report.dochttp://www.wbsi.org/ilfdigest/msdocs/3FEB05.Climate_Club_Report.doc


32/162

doesn't seem to me very likely they'll suddenly decide there is no problem unlessthere is incontrovertible evidence. Not just income, but reputations are at stake.

If there is a problem it seems to me highly unlikely that enough people in theworld will make the kinds of changes in their lives that might delay the onslaught,

let alone prevent it. At least not until the evidence is hitting them right in the face -and perhaps not even then.

The potential of a global warming problem is, however, a fertile breeding groundfor technological and social change. If we are going to stake out positions inorder to further the conference might we not want to think about what the optimaltech or social results of the problem are? What opportunities are present in thesimple existence of the problem (whether it is objectively true or not that man iscausing global warming)?

Participant

Kip, of course you are quite right. My contribution is to only one stream of ourdebate, the other one is crucial.

I just want to say a bit more about why George and Michael get castigated soharshly when they declare neutrality.

Yes, it is true that some people are professionally dependent on finding problemsto work on. But it is much worse than that for an enclave. Its survival as a high-principled united body depends on having enemies.

Adopting the posture of defense deflects the envy and anger sizzling inside thegroup. The more they provoke attack, the more easily they can convincemembers that they are good, saints and even martyrs, and that the mainstreamoutside is utterly evil.

Belonging to an enclave leads them to a particularly critical and negative view ofhuman nature. It also leads them to recruit 'nature' to their cause. Announcingthe imminent demise of nature is a bid to postpone the demise of theircommunity which is under threat, and which includes wife and children.

George is promoting their agenda every time he sticks his head out with somenews about anthropogenic dangers to the environment being a minute proportionof natural dangers. It isn't the evidence that is hitting them in the face; the normalproblem of the enclave bothers them more.

ParticipantMary's introduction of the idea of enclaves has encouraged me to join this eruditeconversation. I am an enclave member, but never recognized it until now. Butsince I am a member, I have a less bitter view of what it is than some of you.


33/162

My enclave is composed of multiple ideas. These are: rapid populationincreases, increasing use of scientific inventions that make the human use ofspace and things more difficult for others while satisfying one's own desires,increasing spread of wealth from the poor to the very rich, and many others thatany of you can describe.

Members of my enclave are prejudiced to welcome arguments supporting globalwarming, efforts to reduce population (yes, even the Chinese one-familyexperiment), larger families than two (of course we have three!), and manysimilar human activities.

Having confessed the above, I still claim that I have an open mind and that theperceptions I have just admitted to be just common sense which any reasonableperson would respect. Members of my enclave would admit we are not certainthat we should try to decrease global warming, that we should preach smallerfamilies, etc. but that to join such movements will do less harm and might do a lot

of good.

Of course, other enclaves have similar convictions. But perhaps if we couldencourage enclave-believers (different from religious or patriotic beliefs) whomight be capable of open discussions, they might be a road towards morecollaborative discussion.

I am not sure how much of the above I really believe. It is all a very new idea forme. But I thank Mary (even if I am alone in doing so) for igniting me to express it

ParticipantDon, I am not sure I accept you as being an enclave member.

Your group doesn't seem to have any people in it or any boundaries which theymust cross to speak to the outside. There is no one you suspect of trying to bossthe show, or free-riding on other members' work. It is more like the slippery sandsof a Dune organization than a simple enclave. If my doubting answer doesn'tannoy you, you are certainly not a member of an enclave.

Richard, you chose the nicest person, and yes, I do think that Peter suits youvery well.

About the Walter Roberts Climate Club, what a good idea. Count me in as theresident amateur.

ParticipantMary: My # 56 was not written with much conviction. As a former member of

Planned Parenthood, I thought I read in your words many similarities to being anenclave member. And at the same time, there were many related causes, suchas pro-abortion and others that sounded to me like possibly related enclaves.


34/162

But I must have missed some important features of enclaves and, with no malicewhatsoever; I withdraw my application for membership :)

The only possibly valid idea I was playing with is that today it would seem that

many genuine enslave members would also be members of a number of relatedorganizations. If so, does this lead to some new ideas for understanding GlobalWarming, and from there to better skills for discussions of Global Warming thatincludes opposing enclaves on the issues?

ParticipantMy guess is that the issue creates bonds among people who may not haveassociated before but now share a particular view of global warming, eventhough there is not necessarily a charismatic leader in the group. Then theevidence that supports their view becomes shared, with the most extremefindings becoming the most welcome news, leading to increased polarization of

the issue, and deepening resentment of the opposition. Maybe they begin to actlike an enclave. Why would a smart, interesting, Hispanic Los Angeles Timescolumnist who writes about city politics, never science or environmental issues,feel the need to call Michael Crichton a menace and a crackpot?

I would still like an answer to my questionwho are the short term winners andlosers? Obviously, if the warming skeptics are correct, winners are corporationsthat don't have to spend billions on emission control and political conservativeswho hate government interference, consumers who don't have to give up theirSUVs. Losers are scientists and environmentalists who have a major financialinterest in maintaining funding for their projects, other nations that have joinedKyoto, celebrities and leaders who have staked their reputations on warming. I'msure there are others.

Clearly, if the warmers are correct, in the long term there are big losers, andsome winners, I guess, depending upon where one lives. But it is not clear howeven those blessed with warmer climates for growing, will do well if vast areas ofthe earth force massive migration or starvation. Maybe we all lose in the longterm.

ParticipantDon, if your 1.56 was inspired by experiences of a Planned Parenthood group, it

could easily become very sectarian. A French colleague is studying socialworkers and medics dealing with HIV positive patients, and he reports very clearsymptoms of the enclave mentality: sympathy for the victims of AIDS, obviously,and resentment and rejection of every one else who has to do with them,poaching on their preserve, as it were.I know what it is like in academia too, very exciting and rewarding to be in a littlegroup of students, followers of a famous but eccentric professor, only respecting


35/162


36/162

the idea of enclavism in cultural theory is essentially based on constructeddimensions designed to assess the infrastructure for each form of cultural bias.So the extreme enclave will institute much stronger boundaries keeping themembers from being seduced away from the true beliefs. It is not difficult to listthe boundaries and then test empirically how effective they are in particular

cases. The successful enclave manages to control the information coming intothe group, needs to do that to prevent the pure milk of the word from beingwatered down. We find that such a group develops internal pressure to closeitself more and more, even to the point of dysfunction. Your Family Plannerswould only count as incipiently enclavist.

ParticipantThe environment and people are connected through mostly economic activities(which might be in turn embedded in cultural paradigms). Currently business isrewarded for activities that are not environmentally friendly and indeed reducethe environment in act and thought.

Could there be a way to motivate a much more robust playfulness, like taking onCO2, forests, species, and making much of the world a great garden, as creativedesign issues that are intrinsically interesting and possibly important.and thatcorporations would be sufficiently compensated that a real shift in this directioncould occur?

It is so extraordinary, god as Shakespeare, that eco-logos and eco-nomos,ecological and economical, both build on the same Greek eco root for home.How could the logic of the home and the law of the home so diverge? Let's bringthem back working together for the eco we all desire.

ParticipantEntering a week late and already in love! Mary, your questions and quips havebeen so delightful, ironic, informing and mind-altering that I gave up lunch so Icould rush to catch up. And here I enter at the right time too, as the danglingtopic of clean solar ovens for rural Africans leads to a question about commercialloggers. But before I reflect from my experience with those enclaves, I want toask if I am at risk of becoming part of a new enclave, now that I have put Riskand Culture on my reading list, second only to State of Fearand the Economistarticle Dick recommends?

Is there an anthroposocial category for Shape-Shifters?

Since I now have an appointment I cannot miss (picking up my kid at school), Iwill save response to specifics in the first 62 postings till tomorrow. But I cannothelp but mention a thought I have now, looking at Michael's picture on the backof his book --how much of the negative reaction to his book might come from

jealousy that he is so damn handsome? Other than Farson, who has been a pin-up on countless psychology students' bulletin boards, I dont know what the rest


37/162

of you fellow enclavers look like. But I can say for certain that I dont want toshow up on a panel with Crichton.

Heymaybe that explains why so many of my cons

Documents

Global Warming Conference Jul05