Everything you know about Global Warming is wrong

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6879251.ece

by inm • 16 years ago

50 40 16 years ago

timesonline.co.uk

steerpike• 16 years ago

I wish someone smarter than myself could explain to me why I find articles written in this style (or tone of voice or rythmn or whatever the correct term is) so nauseating and irritating?

nimai• 16 years ago

102 paragraphs with no sections, organization, or even an introduction to the article?

A title that immediately puts you on the defensive?

Quotes like this? “I don’t know anyone I would say is smarter than Nathan,” Gates, an investor in IV, once observed.

MC27• 16 years ago

It's not really an article, it's a book extract. A demo to get you to purchase the book and it fills the paper.

Tycho• 16 years ago

I'm not sure either but I think it might be because in the back of your mind you know there's about 5-10 sentences worth of actual meat to the article (ie. quotes from the interviewees) but they spread them out over dozens of paragraphs. And act like this is entertaining for the reader.

edit: there's a cute widget/plug-in/extension for someone to build - make something that strips newspaper articles of all text except the quotes. May need some jiggering about to make it readable.

ohnonono• 16 years ago

...apart from all the bits of Superfreakonomics that have been debunked, that is. I believe the proportion of error is somewhere in the region of "every damned thing they wrote".

markkat4• 16 years ago

I am tired of this hand-waving crap. These guys are making money by pushing flashy contrarian views with half-baked theories and little to no actual data. IMHO, this stuff is to science what FoxNews is to politics.

meric• 16 years ago

The article refers to a paper. Is the paper then not actual data? I'm surprised to see everyone so far just say the article is wrong, without being specific. Did the article connect the dots wrong, are the 'facts' the article claim to be true misleading, do the people the article refer to not exist, or are all the sources the article linked to wrong/irrelevant? I'm not someone who's acquainted with formal scientific journalism, so it's not something I can judge well by myself. That means I can't judge whether people saying the article is wrong are a valid claim either! And that's why I think it'd have been better if the commenters were a bit more specific.

Part of article I was referring to:

Would it work? The scientific evidence says yes. Perhaps the stoutest scientific argument in favour of it came from Paul Crutzen, a Dutch atmospheric scientist whose environmentalist bona fides run even deeper than Caldeira’s — he won a Nobel prize for his research on atmospheric ozone depletion.

In 2006 he wrote an essay in the journal Climatic Change lamenting the “grossly unsuccessful” efforts to emit fewer greenhouse gases and acknowledging that an injection of sulphur in the stratosphere “is the only option available to rapidly reduce temperature rises and counteract other climatic effects”.

Crutzen’s embrace of geoengineering was considered such a heresy within the climate science community that some of his peers tried to stop the publication of his essay. How could the man reverently known as “Dr Ozone” possibly endorse such a scheme? Wouldn’t the environmental damage outweigh the benefits?

Actually, no. Crutzen concluded that damage to the ozone would be minimal. The sulphur dioxide would eventually settle out in the polar regions but in such relatively small amounts that significant harm was unlikely.

markkat4• 16 years ago

I read it again. Which paper are you referring to? The essay? -That's not a scientific paper, it is speculation by a scientist.

You see, the problem is that the issue is too complex to wrap up like they did here. It is not sexy, but every component that could contribute to climate change requires careful data collection, analysis and objective consideration.

For example, the article seems to infer that solar panels would result in global warming because they are dark, and have a 15% efficiency converting sunlight to electricity. However, this does not take into consideration factors such as: estimates in increased efficiency as the solar panel technology matures, or (probably more important) the offset of warming effects of current fuel sources that solar panels will replace, particularly the burning of fossil fuels.

The real problem here, IMO, is that people walk away from an article like this thinking an issue such as global climate change can be understood and resolved simply by having the correct perspective. However, the reality is that the issue is much more complex, and that more important than our perspective, is what we can infer from data and the diligent analysis of that data by people that are motivated to understand the issue, and not to sell the discourse.

paulgb• 16 years ago

The sad thing is, Freakonomics and their NYTimes blog were pretty interesting, and for "popular science", reasonably solid. Everything since Superfreakonomics (inclusive) has been a huge let-down.

joelmichael• 16 years ago

You just hand-wove their arguments, called their ideas half-baked, and accused them of being like Fox News with little to no actual data.

Construct• 16 years ago

The proposed solution for cooling the Earth in the article is questionable at best. Furthermore, even if you lower global temperatures through stratosphere manipulation, there are many other scary unknowns in the field of climate change. Take ocean acidification for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

The ocean is a substantial sink for atmospheric CO2. Our best guess is that 1/3 of the CO2 we produced is absorbed by the ocean. As the ocean absorbs CO2, however, the pH of ocean water drops. Unfortunately, we don't know how this will affect all of the different species of marine life that live in the ocean, but early experiments show that shellfish in particular do not tolerate more acidic waters very well. Furthermore, there is reason to believe that the ocean's CO2 absorbing capabilities will decrease as the pH decreases, leaving us with even more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Basically, there are a whole lot of unknowns in the whole debate, many of which could have unpleasant (to say the least) consequences. Brushing the entire field of climate science aside and declaring that all of our problems can be solved by pumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere is wildly irresponsible.

yummyfajitas6• 16 years ago

But the climate models say that we can do this. The models are so accurate and trustworthy that we can totally predict what global climate will be 100 years in the future depending on whether or not we adopt Kyoto. We can also predict what they would be now if humans didn't emit CO2.

Why are you denying the consensus and being anti-science? You must also be a creationist.

</snark>

This is an interesting topic, because it really forces us to evaluate how much we actually know about climate. To draw conclusions like "the modern warming trend is anthropogenic in origin", we need to believe that our climate models are really good. So good, in fact, that they can accurately model virtually the entire climate, which is what allows us to pinpoint CO2 emissions and rule out all other forcings as the cause of modern warming.

We do this by running the models with those other forcings, but without CO2, and observe less warming. But then, we turn around and say "we can't model $geoengineering_scheme". Why not? Are our models simply incapable of predicting the response of climate to various forcings?

leot• 16 years ago

Geoengineering schemes are entirely novel new forcings, while the impact of atmospheric CO2 can be studied historically.

This weakens your contention, but I still think you're pointing out an interesting bit of hypocrisy in the public debate (often these hypocrisies cease to exist in debates among experts).

anthonyb4• 16 years ago

The models don't enter into it.

You just need to observe the relative carbon isotope levels in the CO2 of the atmosphere. If the CO2 is natural, there'll be a large proportion of C-14 (it's created by interactions with cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere). If it's man made, there'll be a lot of C-12 and 13, since that comes from oil, which has been nowhere near the upper atmosphere for millions of years.

Oh, and there's now enough man-made CO2 in the air that carbon dating is inaccurate for recent things (it tests as really old).

CWuestefeld• 16 years ago

there are a whole lot of unknowns in the whole debate, many of which could have unpleasant (to say the least) consequences. Brushing the entire field of climate science aside and declaring that all of our problems can be solved by pumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere is wildly irresponsible.

I think the article says just that:

Myhrvold is not arguing for an immediate deployment of the sulphur shield but, rather, that technologies like it be researched and tested so they are ready to use if the worst climate predictions come true.

It seems to me that any objection to this reasoning is really in favor of what we're doing now, which to run around in circles crying that the sky is falling, and claiming that the only possible solution is to pretty much destroy our way of life.

I certainly prefer the Myhrvold approach, of thinking outside the box and challenging others to react, than the Gore fear-mongering.

wgren2• 16 years ago

>claiming that the only possible solution is to pretty much destroy our way of life.

That is what many climate warming deniers like to claim will happen. Doesn't have to be so, Sweden for instance has increased its wealth steadily while at the same time reduced its environmental impact.

>I certainly prefer the Myhrvold approach, of thinking outside the box and challenging others to react, than the Gore fear-mongering.

What Al Gore does is also challenging people to react.

RyanMcGreal• 16 years ago

The Peter Principle of pundits and policy analysts is at work.

aresant• 16 years ago

For anything like this to get approval they need to have a clear "how do we undo this" plan, that is fundamental to selling this.

yummyfajitas6• 16 years ago

Sulfur dioxide rapidly leaves the atmosphere. That's how we undo it.

spacemanaki• 16 years ago

Elizabeth Kolbert expressed more than a little disdain for the Freakonomics guys last year in the New Yorker; she's pretty thoughtful about this issue I think.

newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/11/16/091116crbo_books_kolbert

gjm11• 16 years ago

This article:

1. Is from 2009.

2. Does not in fact even claim that everything anyone knows about global warming is wrong. (e.g.: "Everyone in the room agrees that the Earth has been getting warmer and human activity probably has something to do with it.")

3. Doesn't do much to substantiate what claims it does make.

4. Is largely about not global warming as such but possible ways to mitigate it.

5. Mostly describes the opinions of people who are not in fact climate scientists.

6. Does purportedly give the opinions of one climate scientist, Ken Caldeira -- but it turns out that he says he's been severely misrepresented by these people; see, e.g., http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/18/error-riddled-superfre... .

16s• 16 years ago

"Everyone in the room agrees that the Earth has been getting warmer and human activity probably has something to do with it."

---

No direct evidence of this exists. Humans may have something to do with it, and they may not. There is still debate on what the causes might be and much research still needs to be done.

I find it ironic that scientists can act so religious-like on this topic and have faith in the belief that humans are the sole reason behind global warming without solid scientific proof.

Edit: Spelling. No comments, but lots of down votes. Do please cite the evidence rather than just throw stones.

jasonlotito• 16 years ago

> but lots of down votes.

Because you are making a lot of assumptions. For example:

"the Earth has been getting warmer and human activity probably has something to do with it."

Is different from "The earth is getting warmer because of human activity."

In fact, you go on to say: "Humans may have something to do with it, and they may not. There is still debate on what the causes might be and much research still needs to be done."

A debate on this implies that their are those who think human activity is partly to blame.

Finally, you go on to say this:

>I find it ironic that scientists can act so religious-like on this topic and have faith in the belief that humans are the sole reason behind global warming without solid scientific proof.

Religious-like? Faith? Humans are the sole reason?

"human activity probably has something to do with it."

That's why you are getting down voted. Stop overreacting. =)

fr0man• 16 years ago

Here are a couple of scientific articles from two of the more well respected science organizations in the world. There are a plethora more, though it's hard to wade through the opinion pieces, which are far more numerous. The general consensus among the experts is human activity does have something to do with global warming. And there is a ton of direct evidence. In my mind (I'm not a climate scientist, but as a biologist I have been exposed to a lot of the research over the last 15 years or so), the question isn't so much are we contributing to global warming as it is how much we're contributing to global warming.

Like it or not politically, the way science works within a scientific community on issues like this is driven by the consensus of the expert community, which is informed by the data. Granted, it's easier to get published in a peer reviewed journal with an article that supports global warming than one that tries to debunk it, but in a scientific forum the data will eventually stand up on its own. If someone uncovers a preponderance of empirical data that contradicts human contribution to global warming, it will stand up to scientific scrutiny. The best example of a paradigm changing finding of this sort that I can think of in modern science is punctuated equilibrium. A lot of the evolutionary biology community screamed bloody murder at first, but the data were just too compelling to ignore. Unfortunately, on global warming the data all point in the opposite direction right now, i.e. global warming is happening and we as humans are contributing to it.

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

eogas• 16 years ago

I think books like this sell because the subject matter is easy to understand, but brings about some sense of superiority in the reader for knowing contradicting theories. These books succeed due to the shock value of the information they contain. This is in a similar vein to the Penn and Teller show "Bullshit". If you say something loud enough, and sound relatively intelligent in the process, people feel smarter when they hear it. I feel that the same is true about Malcolm Gladwell's writings.

The only problem is that the shock value of the content is in no way related to how valid the information is. "Bullshit" is terribly biased towards the presenters opinions, whereas books like these are biased towards whatever makes headlines, which results in varied levels of validity.

todayiamme• 16 years ago

Wait hasn't anyone else noticed how big a PR job this is for intellectual ventures?

In fact, this is the one chapter in the entire book (superfreakonomics) that was too hard to stomach. It's just too fake.

There are a lot of rants on HN about this. Pointing out that Intellectual Ventures is just a patent troll;

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1134762 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1134743 and more.

MattGrommes• 16 years ago

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/why_everything_in_su...

This is a good look at the various rebuttals to basically everything in this chapter of Superfreakonomics.

Everything you know about Global Warming is wrong

Related Stories