![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
snousleWith some spare time lately I've been drawn into some philosophical issues. A recent discussion about climate change on another journal has led to some useful ideas.
For decades, I have been drawn to the train wreck that is "fringe" science - most especially creationism and HIV denial, but also Velikovskyism, holocaust denial, and so forth. Reading this material is hugely educational, because the rhetorical tactics of denialists are so interesting. (Not to mention being so consistent across different subjects, while being entirely different from debate within the scientific community.) But in each case, I find myself wondering what the proper response should be. Although I read much more than I write, I do get sucked into arguments about these things, and am left wondering why I let this happen.
Individual debate on these things is not something worth "winning" - there is no such thing - but it does have a certain sword-sharpening effect that has greatly improved my critical thinking skills. With perhaps one exception - a correspondence with John Lauritsen over his denial of HIV/AIDS - the denialists I've communicated with directly have had no power or influence whatsoever, and even if I had utterly convinced them of their error, this would have no desirable results other than my own personal satisfaction. Which, in the long run, is not really the goal.
HIV denialism was unfortunate, but it's also been a self-correcting problem. The reason you don't hear much about it these days is that most of the denialists are now dead, at least in part because of their own gullibility. So sorry! Can't say I didn't try. It's rare that an issue like this is "laid to rest" in such a literal fashion.
Creationism is more abstract - who cares what people believe about where human beings came from? Unlike HIV denialsm, it would appear on the surface to be of little consequence. The trouble is that it underlies so much right-wing politics in this country. When you really dig down into the foundations of right-wing philosophy, it keeps coming down to that - the idea that human beings are a special creation apart from nature. Having personally analyzed data from chimpanzee DNA sequencing and seen with my own eyes that it is 98% identical to human DNA, I have to ask not where humans come from, but where monkeys come from - because if a god created them, too, he has a really fucked up sense of humor!
It's only recently that climate-change denial has become widely popular, and the "scandal" over the Climactic Research Unit emails has given it new life.
Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think it's all that consequential. This is because I'm so deeply pessimistic about the ability of all the nations of the world to constrain their fossil fuel use. I don't think it matters at all how many people believe in anthropogenic climate change - all the oil and coal in the world will be burned, and when that's gone, we'll go after the uranium and the methane clathrates. The short-term economic rewards for doing this are too compelling, and given the weakness of the Kyoto and Copenhagen accords I see no reason to believe they can be resisted.
[As it happens, I find CRU email flap to be unremarkable and typical of my own experience in the field. Having been the same sort of analyst as the researchers in question - it's fairly likely that some of the data they use has been generated by my own software - it's kind of a personal issue. As far as the data analysis issues are concerned, their account of what these messages mean is entirely consistent with the scientific "shorthand" used when discussing normal and proper analytic practices. A lot of meaning is compressed into a few words, and those outside the discussion have no way of knowing what it "really" means without further explanation. While the political comments are unfortunate and a little disturbing, it's typical of how people respond in private when they are frustrated by politically motivated attacks on their work - it's called "blustering".]
Anyway, it's the climate-change thing that has grabbed my attention most recently, particularly since John has about a 25-year history of involvement in this research through his work on carbon-14 analysis. You see, back in the 50s there were several H-bomb tests that released a huge amount of 14C into the atmosphere all at once, unintentionally starting the worlds largest isotope-tracing experiment. Using the techniques he developed, it is possible to trace that 14C through the environment and thus understand the global carbon cycle in greater detail. For example, he helped out with some early work in understanding the sources of atmospheric methane. From which we get the idea that cow farts can have an effect on climate.
Ignoring the questions of how global warming might unfold and what should be done about it, the key idea underlying concern about climate change is that a little bit of CO2 has a surprisingly large effect. And once you acknowledge that the effect is large, the question of exactly how climate change will unfold is a secondary concern which I will not address here.
The first part of the argument is easy to make - we know, beyond any reasonable doubt, how much CO2 is currently in the atmosphere and how much carbon is available in fossil fuels. So let's step through some really easy calculations that illustrate the atmospheric impact of fossil fuel use. The total mass of atmospheric CO2 is 3.0×1015 kg (three trillion tons), and we know that the proven reserves of coal are around 909 billion tonnes. I don't think anyone disputes these figures. Given that coal is mostly carbon, we can see that burning all this coal would generate 3.2 trillion tons of CO2 - more than all of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere.
Estimates of how long it would take to burn all this coal given current production rates range from about 50 to 150 years. To get a handle on whether this is reasonable, imagine allotting these reserves equally to the 9 billion people of the world. This would give everyone a 100-ton share of coal. That sounds like a whole lot, until you realize that using coal to generate the electricity to burn one 100-watt light bulb 24 hours a day uses a whopping 770 pounds a year. In practice, our three-person household uses in electricity alone more than fifteen times that amount - 500 watts per person - so using coal to generate it, our "personal" allotment would go down at nearly two tons a year and last just a little more than 50 years. In other words, it's Not All That Much.
Climate change deniers often quip that the atmosphere is too large for human beings to have any effect on CO2 levels - the only reason anyone would believe that is because they are unable to perform simple arithmetic. As it happens, examining both 14C/12C ratios and oxygen/nitrogen ratios in atmospheric CO2 provide independent confirmation that observed increases in CO2 concentration come from fossil sources. (Fossil fuels contain no 14C, and using them consumes oxygen, causing changes in both these ratios.) So unless you believe that all of science is a grand conspiracy, multiple lines of readily understandable evidence from independent sources all point to the same conclusion: burning fossil fuels is responsible for increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2.
Where things get difficult is in the assertion that CO2 is a relevant greenhouse gas. A common argument against anthropogenic climate change is that the effects of IR absorption by water vapor overwhelm the contribution of CO2. What has become clear to me recently is that this is in fact the only objection that merits serious discussion. Because, unlike the arithmetical arguments above, this is not a simple argument. I've come to realize that climate change denialism is unique because it really does come down to this one thing. Arguments against HIV/AIDS and creationism are fought on a thousand fronts, but this debate comes down to just one, making it an excellent subject for a serious discussion about the philosophy of science, and an explanation of why we would believe such a thing to be true.
To be continued later today...
For decades, I have been drawn to the train wreck that is "fringe" science - most especially creationism and HIV denial, but also Velikovskyism, holocaust denial, and so forth. Reading this material is hugely educational, because the rhetorical tactics of denialists are so interesting. (Not to mention being so consistent across different subjects, while being entirely different from debate within the scientific community.) But in each case, I find myself wondering what the proper response should be. Although I read much more than I write, I do get sucked into arguments about these things, and am left wondering why I let this happen.
Individual debate on these things is not something worth "winning" - there is no such thing - but it does have a certain sword-sharpening effect that has greatly improved my critical thinking skills. With perhaps one exception - a correspondence with John Lauritsen over his denial of HIV/AIDS - the denialists I've communicated with directly have had no power or influence whatsoever, and even if I had utterly convinced them of their error, this would have no desirable results other than my own personal satisfaction. Which, in the long run, is not really the goal.
HIV denialism was unfortunate, but it's also been a self-correcting problem. The reason you don't hear much about it these days is that most of the denialists are now dead, at least in part because of their own gullibility. So sorry! Can't say I didn't try. It's rare that an issue like this is "laid to rest" in such a literal fashion.
Creationism is more abstract - who cares what people believe about where human beings came from? Unlike HIV denialsm, it would appear on the surface to be of little consequence. The trouble is that it underlies so much right-wing politics in this country. When you really dig down into the foundations of right-wing philosophy, it keeps coming down to that - the idea that human beings are a special creation apart from nature. Having personally analyzed data from chimpanzee DNA sequencing and seen with my own eyes that it is 98% identical to human DNA, I have to ask not where humans come from, but where monkeys come from - because if a god created them, too, he has a really fucked up sense of humor!
It's only recently that climate-change denial has become widely popular, and the "scandal" over the Climactic Research Unit emails has given it new life.
Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think it's all that consequential. This is because I'm so deeply pessimistic about the ability of all the nations of the world to constrain their fossil fuel use. I don't think it matters at all how many people believe in anthropogenic climate change - all the oil and coal in the world will be burned, and when that's gone, we'll go after the uranium and the methane clathrates. The short-term economic rewards for doing this are too compelling, and given the weakness of the Kyoto and Copenhagen accords I see no reason to believe they can be resisted.
[As it happens, I find CRU email flap to be unremarkable and typical of my own experience in the field. Having been the same sort of analyst as the researchers in question - it's fairly likely that some of the data they use has been generated by my own software - it's kind of a personal issue. As far as the data analysis issues are concerned, their account of what these messages mean is entirely consistent with the scientific "shorthand" used when discussing normal and proper analytic practices. A lot of meaning is compressed into a few words, and those outside the discussion have no way of knowing what it "really" means without further explanation. While the political comments are unfortunate and a little disturbing, it's typical of how people respond in private when they are frustrated by politically motivated attacks on their work - it's called "blustering".]
Anyway, it's the climate-change thing that has grabbed my attention most recently, particularly since John has about a 25-year history of involvement in this research through his work on carbon-14 analysis. You see, back in the 50s there were several H-bomb tests that released a huge amount of 14C into the atmosphere all at once, unintentionally starting the worlds largest isotope-tracing experiment. Using the techniques he developed, it is possible to trace that 14C through the environment and thus understand the global carbon cycle in greater detail. For example, he helped out with some early work in understanding the sources of atmospheric methane. From which we get the idea that cow farts can have an effect on climate.
Ignoring the questions of how global warming might unfold and what should be done about it, the key idea underlying concern about climate change is that a little bit of CO2 has a surprisingly large effect. And once you acknowledge that the effect is large, the question of exactly how climate change will unfold is a secondary concern which I will not address here.
The first part of the argument is easy to make - we know, beyond any reasonable doubt, how much CO2 is currently in the atmosphere and how much carbon is available in fossil fuels. So let's step through some really easy calculations that illustrate the atmospheric impact of fossil fuel use. The total mass of atmospheric CO2 is 3.0×1015 kg (three trillion tons), and we know that the proven reserves of coal are around 909 billion tonnes. I don't think anyone disputes these figures. Given that coal is mostly carbon, we can see that burning all this coal would generate 3.2 trillion tons of CO2 - more than all of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere.
Estimates of how long it would take to burn all this coal given current production rates range from about 50 to 150 years. To get a handle on whether this is reasonable, imagine allotting these reserves equally to the 9 billion people of the world. This would give everyone a 100-ton share of coal. That sounds like a whole lot, until you realize that using coal to generate the electricity to burn one 100-watt light bulb 24 hours a day uses a whopping 770 pounds a year. In practice, our three-person household uses in electricity alone more than fifteen times that amount - 500 watts per person - so using coal to generate it, our "personal" allotment would go down at nearly two tons a year and last just a little more than 50 years. In other words, it's Not All That Much.
Climate change deniers often quip that the atmosphere is too large for human beings to have any effect on CO2 levels - the only reason anyone would believe that is because they are unable to perform simple arithmetic. As it happens, examining both 14C/12C ratios and oxygen/nitrogen ratios in atmospheric CO2 provide independent confirmation that observed increases in CO2 concentration come from fossil sources. (Fossil fuels contain no 14C, and using them consumes oxygen, causing changes in both these ratios.) So unless you believe that all of science is a grand conspiracy, multiple lines of readily understandable evidence from independent sources all point to the same conclusion: burning fossil fuels is responsible for increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2.
Where things get difficult is in the assertion that CO2 is a relevant greenhouse gas. A common argument against anthropogenic climate change is that the effects of IR absorption by water vapor overwhelm the contribution of CO2. What has become clear to me recently is that this is in fact the only objection that merits serious discussion. Because, unlike the arithmetical arguments above, this is not a simple argument. I've come to realize that climate change denialism is unique because it really does come down to this one thing. Arguments against HIV/AIDS and creationism are fought on a thousand fronts, but this debate comes down to just one, making it an excellent subject for a serious discussion about the philosophy of science, and an explanation of why we would believe such a thing to be true.
To be continued later today...
