OK, some real science
From a real scientist! Freeman Dyson took to the pages of the New York Review of Books to castigate global warming fanatics on their more evangelical tendencies. He was reviewing two new books, A Question of Balance by William Nordhaus and Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto, and what they mean for the global warming movement (and the world) as a whole. Some fascinating stuff.
First, on Freeman Dyson: If there’s any concept from high-minded science fiction I find more intriguing than the singularity, it’s the Dyson Sphere. Dyson is a pretty brilliant guy, and he’s certainly not an Exxon-funded hack. In other words, he’s not easy for the enviro-Nazis to dismiss.
His review constitutes two parts. On the one hand, he tackles the economic difficulties of targeting climate change, writing that
The most crucial question facing the policymaker is then how to compare present-day gains and losses with gains and losses a hundred years in the future. That is why Nordhaus chose “A Question of Balance” for his title. If we can save M dollars of damage caused by climate change in the year 2110 by spending one dollar on reducing emissions in the year 2010, how large must M be to make the spending worthwhile? Or, as economists might put it, how much can future losses from climate change be diminished or “discounted” by money invested in reducing emissions now?
As Dyson points out, radical proposals like the ones promulgated by Al Gore would have disastrous consequences on both present and future economies, especially in China. He writes
The practical consequence of the Stern policy would be to slow down the economic growth of China now in order to reduce damage from climate change a hundred years later. Several generations of Chinese citizens would be impoverished to make their descendants only slightly richer. According to Nordhaus, the slowing-down of growth would in the end be far more costly to China than the climatic damage.
In other words, we want to consign generations of Chinese to poverty to make ourselves feel a little better about taking active steps towards change. As Nordhaus notes in his book, this smacks of the British Empire crippling its subjects for its own lofty goals.
But I’m not terribly interested in the economic aspect of Dyson’s review. What I find much more interesting is his condemnation of the scientific community for its behavior over the last decade or so. He summarizes the problem after examining two essays from Looking Beyond Kyoto:
These two chapters give the reader a sad picture of climate science. Rahmstorf represents the majority of scientists who believe fervently that global warming is a grave danger. Lindzen represents the small minority who are skeptical. Their conversation is a dialogue of the deaf. The majority responds to the minority with open contempt.
This is the problem in the global warming community: there is no debate any longer. If you don’t accept that a.) global warming is entirely man-made, b.) it’s the worst thing ever, and c.) we must do something drastically right now or we’re all dead and the planet is ruined!!! then you’re a terrible, terrible person. An apostate from enviroreligion, if you will.
The whole piece is worth a read, but the last few pages are especially important. The consequences (and causes) of global warming are by no means settled science; castigating the few interested in pursuing alternate avenues of exploration is no way to move the debate forward. Being dogmatic doesn’t help anyone.