Penn on global warming

[bascule]

I've been a fairly avid follower of Penn's style of skeptical libertarianism, rationalism, atheism, and a general aversion to what he and his partner Teller refer to as "Bullshit!" in the eponymous TV show. He's a fellow at the Cato institute, who've been doing some great work lately combating the Bush administration's illegal spying program.

 

I'm a bit concerned about his views on global warming:

 

http://medioh.tv/videos/3750182

 

Actually, I'm not concerned about his views so much, but more the reasons why he has them. What he's asking for is entirely reasonable: falsifiability and evidence.

 

Science can easily provide this information: averaged multi-decadal trends in global mean surface temperature show a continual increase. If they inexplicably cease to do this for a prolonged period of time, then climate scientists are wrong and need to find a new theory which fits the new evidence.

 

Unfortunately, the information which reaches the general population can't easily relay this, and such factual tidbits tend to get drowned out in the overall noise surrounding the phenomenon.

 

Penn is a rational-minded, skeptical, scientific-thinking person, and I'm sure if he could sit down and have a frank scientific discussion with some climate scientists, he could be convinced otherwise. He attests that he simply does not know the answers, but complains about the uninformative noise he's exposed to.

 

What can be done about this? How can science reporting be improved? My general feeling is that the problem with science reporting is the article is structured around the motivations of the journalist, who typically isn't qualified to understand the material being reported on. Scientists, on the other hand, typically have trouble presenting information in a way that's accessible to the general public as they're generally used to framing their descriptions in such a way that they can withstand the scrutiny of other scientists.

 

Is there anything that can be done? Can scientific knowledge be rendered accessible to Joe Blow while still preserving the objectivity science offers?

[Pangloss]

That page doesn't work for me. Is it QuickTime, by any chance?

 

The 2003 Bullsh*t episode on environmentalism hysteria is available on YouTube here (the one where they got protesters to sign a petition banning dihydrogen monoxide):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-qu_0KlMvw

 

I think you may be missing at least one of his valuable points, which is that science shouldn't BE evangelizing this issue, it should simply present the evidence and then leave the socio-political situation alone. You say "while still preserving the objectivity science offers" as if objectivity is some kind of secondary effect of current convenience, and you speak as if the science is instructing us to go and march in the streets, like it's written between the tree lines or hard-coded into the value of pi. I don't buy that argument and I won't be a pawn to a politically-correct cause just because somebody says "the debate is over". Especially if someone says that.

 

And not that I disagree with you about improving science reporting, but I personally see nothing wrong with science reporting on this issue -- the word is OUT, guy. All kinds of polls have shown that most people now believe in GW, so there's no lack of comprehension or understanding on the issue. Just because people aren't marching in politically-correct lockstep to turn in their SUVs and pick up a packet of hemp seeds doesn't mean they haven't been sufficiently educated.

 

You should watch the video iNow sent me (which I blogged to the link below). One of the things it points out is that people have gotten the message -- public opinion is now absolutely on the side of GW, no ifs, ands or buts.

 

Penn is barking into the wind. You should be praying he's heard, not hoping he'll be convinced to shut up, because if we solve the problem of GW without level-headed, reasoning people at the helm, we ARE going to make things worse, not better. That's what happens when evangelism runs roughshod over skepticism.

[swansont]

Any chance anyone has a link to the op-ed in question? Because confusing weather for climate is such an elementary mistake; if Gore said that he was being a doofus.

[Psyber]

All those who think climate change is new and attributable only to man should read Immanuel Velikovsky about changes that occurred in about 1500 BC. I am not saying he is entirely correct as I have not read his original sources, but it is another perspective.

[iNow]

All those who think climate change is new and attributable only to man...

 

Does ANYBODY think that?

 

Natural cycles exist. Human impact exists. Human impact can be mitigated. What exactly is your point?

[Psyber]

Does ANYBODY think that?

 

Natural cycles exist. Human impact exists. Human impact can be mitigated. What exactly is your point?

There seem to be a few around.

 

My point was raising the Velikovsky viewpoint and broadening the scope for consideration here beyond just man's impact and Earth's long-term cycles, to a larger scale, including planetary accidents, in case anybody here had not come across his speculations.

 

And before you go off about that - since you show form for liking to pick fights here - I said Velikovsky was interesting not that his views were proven fact!

[iNow]

I don't pick fights, I win them.

 

Thanks for the tip about the interesting ideas of Velikovsky. I'll need to read more into it.

 

Okay.. EDIT. I'm a quick reader. His ideas DO seem interesting, but do nothing to negate the data regarding anthropogenically induced global climate change, nor the effects on earth of our ever increasing additions to concentrations of atmospheric CO₂.

 

I restate my previous position. Of course the earth has cycles, and of course these existed before humans ever entered the scene. However, now that humans have gone through the industrial revolution, and we've found a way to power society using the sludge of dino bones, we are significantly impacting the atmosphere and all of the life within it.

 

We need efiiciency and design en masse. We KNOW what we're doing is bad, and yet we continue... I don't care what some Las Vegas illusionist says, we need to wisen up, and we need to do it two weeks ago.