Good profile of Ron Bailey in Doublethink. I do not say this merely because I am quoted. It takes a lot of courage to publicly change your mind on an issue like anthropogenic global warming, especially when your political compatriots still disagree.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
All right, I'm glad that he has had the courage to be honest about his change of heart. However:
"Bailey explained that he had long relied on satellite data by climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama, Huntsville to justify his own skepticism. That was the data that he cited in Eco-Scam for example... Unfortunately for him, that data was wrong."
Maybe I'm missing something here, I'm not familiar with the "primary sources" (Bailey's own writing) but it looks an awful lot like someone who went into his analysis of the data with a particular axe to grind (his dislike of environmentalists), ignored EVERY OTHER line of evidence except the one that agreed with his bias, and then finally had to hang it up when that remaining line of evidence went dry. That's not changing your mind through reasoned analysis, that's clinging to your ideology to the last gasp.
He changed his mind. Great. However, I think the most salient point is that he maintained his position for so long by wearing ideological blinders. And seeing this happen again and again is what is so damn frustrating about being an environmentalist, and part of why environmentalists swing so far to the left.
Compare and contrast:
However, I think the most salient point is that he maintained his position for so long by wearing ideological blinders. And seeing this happen again and again is what is so damn frustrating about being an environmental skeptic.
How exactly does Bailey's change of thought take courage?
How exactly does Bailey's change of thought take courage?
Ask the wizard, I hear he's having a 2-for-1 sale over at the Emerald City.
Charlie (Colorado),
That was a fair zing, and I salute you for it. However, I think it's still valid to point out that "environmental skeptic" doesn't mean trolling the evidence for what supports your skepticism and disregarding the rest.
Most people have a need to control their environment. One way this can manifest itself is in a desire for simple, reliable models of reality -- accuracy can suffer because of this need.
I believe this phenomena is part of what drives people toward groupthink. The number of people who believe a certain pricinple is not necessarily a good indication of its veracity. Relativity, for example, seems ludicrous based upon typical human experience. Yet, local experience lends much credence to the 'feeling' that the world is generally flat -- especially if you live in Kansas.
Bailey's initial opinion seems to be formed more on the basis of who were making the arguments and their historical accuracy than on scientific data. His switch is now based on a more extensive review of data:
In an online column titled, “We’re All Global Warmers Now,” Bailey wrote that anyone still clinging to notion that there is no warming “ought to hang it up. All data sets -- satellite, surface, and balloon -- have been pointing to rising global temperatures. In fact, they all have had upward pointing arrows for nearly a decade.”
But is it the right data? We have clear evidence of extensive glaciers in North America as far south as California -- go visit Yosemite. Yet normally reasonable people are convinced that a couple degree warming trend must be anthropogenic. We only have direct temperature measurements for a relative eyeblink of geologic time. It strikes me as quite arrogant as a species that we associate this eyeblink trend to our works.
Clearly the climate varied greatly before we were around, why does a 150 degree trend surprise anyone?
Anyone who knows modeling, knows that it is infamously imprecise and innaccurate when conditions (initial conditions, boundary conditions, etc.) are not well understood. Add to this that the liklihood that we do not fully understand all of the significant phenomena* that affect the climate, and it should be clear that no one knows. But then that truth is more disconcerting than being wrong.
* For example how many of you know that the magnetic poles travel around in very large slow circles? The sun has similar, long-baseline phenomena that significantly affect the sunshine that is the basis for all earth energy except nuclear.
Keith,
I agree with your assessment of Bailey's switch, but it seems like you're not taking into account that we have multiple lines of evidence, from multiple disciplines, using multiple techniques, all used to develop multiple models that consistently suggest that climate change is both anthropogenic and potentially a serious problem. I'm just not sure it's possible to accept the practice of science as a reliable means for investigating the natural world and not accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change at this point.
For example, here's a summary from the president of the National Academy of Sciences (http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Climate_Change_Evidence_and_Future_Projections.asp):
"While future climate change and its impacts are inherently uncertain, they are far from unknown. A broad-brush picture of how global warming may affect certain regions of the world is starting to emerge from climate modeling efforts..."
This was from 2006, and the study of climate change hasn't stopped. The "broad-brush strokes" don't, as you say, represent our perfect understanding of the planet's climate systems. But the brushstrokes are painting a fairly negative picture, and to extend the metaphor, I don't think more detail is going to change that outline.
Sefrankel,
I appreciate your metaphor. But I don't see how you can be sure we are coalescing broad brush strokes, and not extrapolating from a fuzzy picture.
I could stand in Kansas, and measure the slope of the world by pouring water and by holding plumb lines and by a hundred other techniques, but if I don't measure across enough distance I won't determine that the world is round.
I could even ask other travelers about their measurements in other lands, still the truth would elude me.
Check out this link from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
I like the second chart titled "Holocene Temperature Variations." Click on it and you get to the following snippets of text:
During, the Holocene itself, there is general scientific agreement that temperatures on the average have been quite stable compared to fluctuations during the preceding glacial period.
The previous snippet lends credence to the possibility that wilder fluctuations are normal climate behavior.
It is impossible to know whether similarly large short-term temperature fluctuations may have occurred at other times, but are unresolved by the available resolution. The next 150 years will determine whether the long-term average centered on the present appears anomalous with respect to this plot.
The specific complaint within the second snippet is related to resolution of the data. It is only one of many possible criticisms that could be brought to bear on GW theory. Of course, I am not prosposing either that I or Wikipedia have all the answers. In fact my claim is closer to the opposite. To me the plot shows how small a temperature difference the last 150 years is in comparison to the models of the past (everything before 150 years comes from an indirect measurement that is ultimately dependent upon some kind of model).
Perhaps we only have a decent picture of Kansas and some grade schooler's rendition of the greater world beyond?
There remains a difference between acknowledging that the globe has warmed and assigning some percentage of the warming to anthropogenic carbon emissions. That difference is frequently blurred in discussions such as this, as well as in the media.
The warming that has been measured is based on data which has been adjusted to account for a variety of factors. Some of these adjustments have also recently been found to be in error. For example, the very recent determination that 1998 was not, in fact, the warmest year on record.
The sharp decline in global average temperature over the past year, which is of the same magnitude as the warming over the past hundred years, has received relatively little attention in the media, perhaps because it does not easily fit into the ongoing story line. It was certainly not the result of a rapid decline in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
I would ask those of you who are reasonably convinced that the measured warming over the past hundred years is the result of the accumulation of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, which is continuing and continuing to accelerate, to contemplate this fact: If the vessel you are pouring something into is already too full, pouring into it more slowly will not keep it from overflowing.
This fact has fundamental implications for the actions which would be required to keep the atmospheric CO2 concentration from continuing to increase; and, ultimately, returning it to the "ideal" level.
Keith,
What you're using is a logical fallacy called the "argument from personal incredulity," briefly that if it just doesn't seem likely TO YOU that we can have a reasonable idea of whether climactic variation is anthropogenic, then you can disregard anything that doesn't correspond to your impression. Note that I'm not trying to say "you're wrong, shut up" but to identify what about your argument is problematic.
Ed, I think you're quibbling. If that's true, and I'd appreciate a link, how does that fit into the context of all the data gathered on this topic over the past several decades? What are your sources for the "sharp decline" in temperature over the past year? I realize in all likelihood this is a fruitless discussion, I'm convinced and you're not, and this is probably a complicated enough issue that neither of us can deliver that knock-out punch of pure data driven reason. But I read the summaries of the research and the conclusions, pay attention to the credibility and diversity of the folks writing them, and I simply don't understand how a person can maintain a different conclusion without some serious explaining away.
Sefrankel,
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
Look at the 02/27/08 and 02/19/08 postings (You will need to click on "Previous Entries" and scroll down for the 02/19/08 posting.). The data are from the four primary sources. The historical context is there as well.
Whether I am convinced or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that most of what is being suggested to solve the "problem" would not, in fact, be sufficient to do so. If AGW is a real problem, Kyoto is a sick joke; or, perhaps more accurately, an attempt to get the developed nations "a little bit pregnant", in the hope that the pregnancy would be difficult to terminate once begun.
I offer some first order questions for your consideration, for which there are currently no unique answers:
1) What is the "ideal" global average temperature?
2) What is the "ideal" atmospheric CO2 concentration?
3) By what percentage must anthropogenic CO2 emissions be reduced to halt the increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration?
4) Over what time period must we stop the increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration?
5) Over what time period must we return the atmospheric CO2 concentration to its "ideal" level?
Since the science is "settled", the answers to these questions should be known or knowable.
If you ponder these questions, in order, I believe you will discover that the answer to question #3 is obvious; and, that it is inconsistent with anything you have read or heard about what must be done regarding climate change.
Given recent data indicating that we may be at the start of another Maunder Minimum, his timing couldn't be worse.
Kind of like abandoning a short position, right before the stock collapses. IMHO.
Sefrankel,
Just because you can label my argument a logic fallacy does not make it so. My argument is that there is not enough of the right kind of accurate data and knowledge of climate phenomena to accurately predict the future. Not "I don't believe it, so the rest of you shouldn't either."
It is also wrong to suggest I disregard data or arguments that disprove my hypothesis. I actually seek them out. It is why I am writing here. I really don't care much if you are correct -- I don't know you, after all. I am worried that I am wrong. Although I seem to resist groupthink better than most, part of me is skeptical that I can be right with so many smart people arguing the other way.
Most evidence from believers (Bailey's original complaint is certainly alive and well wrt GW) is nothing but rhetoric that points to other rhetoric.* Very little of what data I can easily find relates to my argument. I would love to see the assumptions that were used to create models such as what the "Holocene Temperature Variation" chart describes. I have enough experience with simpler models giving bad predictions to know how inaccurate this business can be.
People who spend their careers working on specific topics can also become mired in the details; they typically have a strong desire to solve the problem, which can lead to inappropriate assumptions. Some assumptions become so ingrained they are largely ignored. I work closely with engineers, and find that they typically leap to the first viable answer, and can be quite surprised when it turns out to be wrong. The Oceanographers & Climatologists are building models that they can not test, except by waiting decades or centuries. So they do the next best thing, and test them against each other's models...
*How do you tell Copernicus, Galileo, or Columbus from a crackpot?
_______________
Ed,
I completely agree with your point about solutions. GW advocates largely seem unconcerned with how effective a solution will be. Consider the reaction to Bjorn Lomborg's latest book, Cool It.
I also love the questions you pose. They shed some light on the awesome scope of any terraforming** proposal. However, I do not see the 'obvious' answer to question 3. Perhaps you mean zero, but I would argue that we do not know enough about CO2 balance phenomena (neither supply nor demand) to suggest an informed answer.
This climatology stuff is very hard to get right. When engineers set out to build a new TV, they are building upon all the old TVs they have designed and built. When engineers do something new, they design, build it (wrong), and then test it. The tests can go spectacularly bad. The first phase of dealing with the test results is often denial. But eventually, enough testing shakes out all the poor assumptions.
How are climatologists supposed to know that a climate model is good enough to work on its first test? If they all are based on the same assumptions then their agreement means nothing. If they are based on different assumptions, then it is easy to misinterpret any correspondence as validation.
**I believe this is the appropriate term for intended climate modification. I also believe it rightly belongs in Science Fiction.
David,
Nice analogy. I too wondered about his timing, but I have only seen one article about this and I did not pick up on the label.
If you are not aware of sunspot cycles, check out this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg
Hmmm. Solar C14 formation also shows a bit of a hockey stick. Maybe it all really comes from Berkeley, Stanford, CERN et al?
Here is the link to Maunder Minimum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum
The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle — and coldest part — of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America, and perhaps much of the rest of the world, were subjected to bitterly cold winters. Whether there is a causal connection between low sunspot activity and cold winters is the subject of ongoing debate (e.g. see Global Warming).
Yep, it's clear there is no room for debate on this completely settled topic.
2 + 2 = 4
mankind + Earth = GW
Keith + computer = ideological zealot
Keith,
I worry that there's something about the topic of climate change that just trips the "go crazy" circuit in my argumentative brain. Your comment "I worry that I am wrong" and what follows is admirable. I suppose the difference between our points of view is actually with regard to what makes up appropriate "scientific consensus" (i.e. have we collected enough of the "right" data regarding climate change) rather than climate change itself.
Sefrankel,
If that is you hitting your "go crazy" button, I don't think you need to worry about any anger management issues.
GW gets me passionate as well. I think it's for two reasons. First, because of the zealots who seek to stifle debate, when I think its important. Also because of what I perceive to be frequent rhetorical amplification of scientific consensus (say that three times fast). By that I mean people pumping the science past where it is.
But those passions are abutted by my INTP* nature. I like to focus on my understanding of the world around me. I am also quirky about accuracy (often stopping during my blogments to fact check my stuff on the internet).
On the off chance that people are interested in what I believe, it isn't quite as you say. I am sympathetic to your position that AGW is real and I feel that it could be devastating to Venice, New Orleans, Holland, Florida, and Bangladesh (especially them) among others. Clearly the climate has bumped up these last 150 yrs. The timing with the industrial revolution and the CO2 effect are disconcerting. Even more so is the significant change in global CO2.
What I find weak about the argument is that other sources, like the temperature record, the CO2 record, and the sunspot record paint a picture of much more severe climate change being typical. I worry that terraforming is out of our reach, and that we are just along for the ride.
So I do think there are significant problems ahead, but I don't think it is clear that the climate has changed** or that these problems are currently tractable. Perhaps we should be planning incremental mass migrations?
What would Keith's Energy policy be? (Just to piss off everybody brave/stubborn enough to read this far***) I would raise the federal gas tax and use it to support energy/oil saving R&D (full disclosure I earn my living through Aerospace R&D). That would immediately help reduce demand for foreign oil, help reduce the long term demand, and give the country a leg up in the emerging industries that will replace oil.
I call myself a libertarian though, so I would add that I would also want to reform Medicare and Social Security in a way that ends the transfer of wealth from stuggling young people to rich elderly people (I personally am in the in between zone/age where you are paid too much and have too many obligations to enjoy or notice it). My parents for example do not need, nor should they receive Medicare as it exists today. I don't need the extra inheritance it's undoubtedly going to give me either.
I would want to lower the overall tax burden, both on individuals and corporations. My hope is that a transformation of the medical system could enable this. I would mandate full and prompt disclosure of all fees to patients by medical staff (neither party has enough clue how much procedures cost). I would mandate universal catastrophic coverage and pay for it with federal dollars. I would try to encourage HMOs/Insurance carriers to compete on service (mandate government contracts to more than one carrier for every region. I would also make HSAs available to everyone, and use the tax code to encourage their use. My hope would be to eliminate the HMO for standard coverage through the free market. In my idealized world patients would have outstanding access to caregiver performance records (both financial & medical) and would go directly to the best doctors, and force others to clean up their act or get out.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTP
** the records indicate to me that the climate is constantly changing
***Generic impending Soap Box Alert
Still want more? Check out:
http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=532&t=01008577144831956171
Still skeptical too.
I love reading about GW though. Very interesting arguments and science. I also get lot's of laughs reading all the alarmist and hyper-skeptic rhetoric.
I'm not worried about being wrong however. I'm passionate about it, but it's mostly just entertainment to me. And, I hope I'm wrong. I'd rather deal with anthro-global warming and have a buffer against possible cooling (I don't buy into the "we're about to enter a cooling period" hype). So far, the warming trend is very small compared to the variability, and the anthro component is little more than half of that (and the GHG component is about half of that, including feedbacks)-- and I think there is much more uncertainty in the system than we currently believe there to be.
I don't see it as a problem. I'm not sure, but it seems to me that most the "costs" of GW are discrete. They aren't likely to slow economic growth for prolonged period. And they aren't certain to happen.
All that said, I'd like to throw out some assumptions I seem to have in the hopes that someone can effectively address them and move me toward the alarmist camp (as it seems the cool thing to do).
Going back beyond the historical record, the curves we are presented with don't show the error bars. The curves are smooth (multi?) centenial averages. We don't see the fluctuations that likely happened. We should be seeing bands, or big dots, not smooth curves. The geographic sample is also small and may not be representitive.
I also see the same problem with CO2. We don't have good data beyond recent years. I also don't fully trust the CO2 life cycle. Not the general length, but there could be spikes and dips that just don't show in proxies. [Periods of low cloud levels over the oceans could cause large amounts of CO2 to be released, but could be followed by fast reabsorption. (yeah, I know this is probably wrong because CO2 is supposed to mix rather well in the atmosphere, it should be much more difficult for it to be reabsorbed. But still, looking at the data, there is a lot of absorbtion year to year. It's plausible that that may continue and increase while seasonal re-emission drops). This century, the one we have CO2 data for, has had record high solar activity and therefore likely reduced low cloud cover over the oceans. Light is the primary driver of ocean temperature.]
Same with sea level changes, we only have about two decades of satellite, altimeter, and bouy measurement. Historical records for barely a centruy, I believe. Before that, we only see the long term trends.
Basically, I think we just have too little data to know. Also, the warming so far that can be attributed to anthro-GHGs suggests that unless we see a big increase in emmisions, it won't be that big of a difference (so far I think 100ppm has led to about .2C, another 200ppm should lead to less than .4C).
Keith,
Interesting, that would essentially be my favored energy policy as well (although I'd couple it with pretty aggressive carbon trading mechanisms). While I certainly agree that climate change is going to be a huge problem for the countries you mentioned, I'd also add that its effects on our planet's remaining biodiversity are pretty staggering as well. And the effects (referring specifically to CO2) on the pH of the oceans isn't something that I like to think about too often.
I guess though that while I wouldn't dispute the "rhetorical amplification of scientific consensus" coming from SOME quarters, my imperfect understanding of the issue suggests that the "consensus" being amplified isn't the most extreme end, that in fact the on the ground effects of climate change appear to be much worse, much faster than "consensus" suggests. And your point about variation is well taken, even a casual study of evolution teaches one that climactic and geological conditions are variable. However, I think the same material also highlights the stresses that accompany climactic shifts, and that it is a terrifically bad idea to instigate these shifts (I want to recognize the uncertainty here about how much of a shift we've instigated, although I'm personally very concerned that it's more toward the extreme end, or even that it's at risk of being extreme).
Bailey is quoted as saying:
Cap and trade is not working. It is very complicated; it allows corporations and governments to game the system in all kinds of horrible ways. And you don’t get any benefit out of it. Even if you thought you were trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it is just not working.
What the hell is he talking about? There isn't really any strong, functioning global cap and trade system for CO2 in place. The strong cap and trade systems that are in place are on sulfur dioxide and CFCs. Both have worked superbly; the ozone hole is a thing of the past, and acid rain has been dramatically reduced. They each spurred huge scientific innovations by free-market industry that, rather than costing the economy, have greatly benefited it.
I'm in favor of a carbon tax, too; but it looks to me like Bailey's ideological blinders are still overwhelming his ability to cope with the real world. And I'm not at all surprised that he began his political life as a doctrinaire utopian socialist.
It's my understanding the SO2 and CFC emissions continue to rise, be it at a smaller rate than without the systems.
Hey Aaron,
Any link or source? I'd be interested in reading an objective rundown of the efficacy of the SO2/CFC programs. My impression was that the trading framework and subsequent agreements have actually lowered the amounts of those chemicals (see below) but I could be wrong.
BTW, just a minor correction to Brooksfoe, it isn't quite that the ozone hole is a thing of the past, but that it's on track to become a thing of the past over the next few decades. The intervention still worked but just a minor quibble to say that the ozone hole "will be" a thing of the past because we're no longer pumping enough CFCs into the atmosphere to destabilize a climactic system.
I've been reading a little of Bailey's other stuff...he's an interesting writer. I'm still very, very critical of his standards of evidence when it comes to climate change but I'm glad he's on my radar now.
Yes, I read a paper, but I don't know if I saved it (it's not on the machine I'm working on now). Searches just get me a bunch of political websites. It showed levels over the century, there were periods that slowed, but they continue to increase. IIRC is was sulfates and CFCs.
If I find it and can find the link, I'll post it here. E-mail me at aaroncc44 at hotmail.com and I'll send it to you if I have it saved.
Yes, I read a paper, but I don't know if I saved it (it's not on the machine I'm working on now). Searches just get me a bunch of political websites. It showed levels over the century, there were periods that slowed, but they continue to increase. IIRC is was sulfates and CFCs.
If I find it and can find the link, I'll post it here. E-mail me at aaroncc44 at hotmail.com and I'll send it to you if I have it saved.
Here's something on sulfur emissions, it only runs 'til 1990 though.
Sulfate Aerosols
CFC levels 77-95
(CFCs have 45-100 life, HCFC etc that replace CFCs are aerosols and believe to have lesser, but some effect on O3.)