
My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic - nkurz
http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic-1480723518
======
sgentle
I think the best thing I've read about truth and politics is "Politics is the
Mind-Killer"
([http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/)),
by Eliezer Yudkowsky back in 2007:

> Politics is an extension of war by other means. Arguments are soldiers. Once
> you know which side you're on, you must support all arguments of that side,
> and attack all arguments that appear to favor the enemy side; otherwise it's
> like stabbing your soldiers in the back—providing aid and comfort to the
> enemy.

In recent years people seem to be more and more comfortable with this war
metaphor, not as a matter for concern and reflection, but as a subject of
pride. Well, of course we have to win the battle of ideas; it's a culture war
after all!

When you think in this way, the goal of argument isn't to find what's true,
but to win. And if you have to advance some shaky ideas on your side or ignore
some inconvenient facts on theirs, well, it's all in the service of a greater
truth anyway, right?

But how can you fight a war in the service of truth when truth is its first
casualty?

~~~
triplesec
Indeed, and climate scientists got nowhere for decades being terrible at
politics and good at data, which leads us to our current still-
probabilistically-hugely-likely (despite this apparent political problem) dire
predicament.

~~~
inimino
The problem is that it is almost impossible to be good at politics while
maintaining the intellectual distance required by science.

------
triplesec
The author's claim is this, and if true there is merit to listening --- Indeed
there is rarely merit to not listening. Science is all about observation and
probability. EDIT: although clever political framing can skew naive readers
away from truths, which is one of the article's meta topics. ---

"I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases
risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a
conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant
evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become
more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of
good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied
and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be
wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk
to my career."

~~~
cm2187
In fact this is why I take the fear mongering around climate change with a
pinch of salt.

I agree with Popper's definition of science:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability)

A discipline is scientific if it is possible to challenge it, if it _can_ be
proven wrong (it doesn't mean it _will_ , but there is a way to prove it
wrong).

If the discipline is using political pressure to prevent anyone from doing so,
it cannot be called science anymore. A political movement would be a more
appropriate term.

And more generally, my profession (finance) is making extensive use of
mathematical models to model something too complex to be understood perfectly
(financial markets / the economy). But we know our models suck, because we
could do experiment on them, we can test them against reality. We know we can
build models or investment strategies that do great in back-testing but fall
apart as soon as they go live (I have seen that so many times first hand). I
give very little credibility to someone who comes up with a complex
mathematical model that pretends it will predict the climate in 30 years,
knowing that we will only know if his model was reliable in 30 years, we have
no way to test it now. Therefore it cannot be falsified and therefore I don't
think it is science.

~~~
Hondor
Any prediction requires us to wait to see what really happens. I don't think
it's fair to say that 30 years is too long to wait and that it's therefore not
falsifiable. Science has made claims in the past that took much longer than
that to prove false, but we still accept them as falsifiable and that they
were valid science at the time.

~~~
cm2187
What sort of claim do you have in mind?

I can think of scientific theories that have been proven wrong after a long
time, but they haven't been proven wrong because it was impossible to prove
them wrong immediately. Only because it took so long to come up with an
experiment / better theory which in insight could have been done on day 1.

This is not the same as telling everyone "I have a model, my back-testings are
telling me it works, I will only be able to prove it right (or wrong) in 30
years, but you need to take actions now based on what this model says".

~~~
gizmo686
>What sort of claim do you have in mind?

Gravitational waves. Higgs boson. Relativity.

------
sridca
Alternative link: [http://archive.is/iFMxG](http://archive.is/iFMxG)

------
Hondor
The sad problem with climate change is that otherwise sensible people are
willing to put intellectual honesty aside in the name of "we desperately need
to convince everyone that a disaster is coming so they'll be scared into
preventing it". Saying something that might calm people down and fear less is
heretical, no matter if it's true or not.

~~~
wpietri
You ignore here the army of lobbyists who are paid to put intellectual honesty
aside in the name of convincing everyone not to worry because that protects
hundreds of billions in revenue.

it wasn't the people who accept global warming as a reality who started
politicizing this. It's unfair to blame them for getting political in
response.

~~~
inimino
It's unfair to blame _only_ them.

------
lisper
> No Category 3, 4 or 5 hurricane has made landfall in the U.S. since
> Hurricane Wilma in 2005

That is true, but highly misleading. Yes, Sandy was a Cat 2 when she made
landfall in the U.S., but she was a Cat 3 before that, and she was the largest
(in terms of area) Atlantic hurricane in recorded history. She was also (and
this is the part that really matters) the second costliest hurricane in U.S.
history, second only to Katrina, and dwarfing the #3 slot (Ike, in 2008) by a
factor of 2.

------
vinhboy
Look at the top comments on that article and you can easily see why people
want to avoid him. He may believe in climate change, but his work is being
used to justify climate change denial.

That's like trying to convince people to vaccinate their children, but then
giving a bullhorn to a guy standing outside the clinic screaming about
possible negative side effects.

Obviously I support his right to publish his findings, but he's misconstruing
attempts to stop the spread of misinformation (as in his work is being used to
justify misinformation) as censorship.

~~~
inimino
The idea that research should be suppressed because it can be "used to justify
denial" (even if it is true) is exactly the problem here.

~~~
vinhboy
I did not say anything about suppression. Avoidance and dismissal is not
suppression.

No one is suggesting suppression or censorship. But we should be free to
exclude, dismiss, and ignore information we find harmful or irrelevant.

~~~
inimino
> harmful or irrelevant

Or politically inconvenient?

If you want to say that the research is no good, that it misrepresents the
facts, or that journalists handled the material fairly, that would be
material.

However, if you say that we should dismiss it because it is being used by
people we don't like in ways we don't like, you may as well admit the
denialists are right, there is a conspiracy to suppress (oh sorry, just
exclude, dismiss, and ignore!) any science that doesn't fit the narrative, and
that you don't trust the public to evaluate anything for themselves.

This is the attitude and the behavior that makes people distrust climate
science.

If you put a veneer of falsehood and spin on a mountain of truth, don't be
surprised when people assume the falsehood goes all the way through.

~~~
vinhboy
I am not even sure what your argument is.

I am saying he can publish whatever he wants and challenge whatever climate
science he wants. That is his absolutely right.

But if people think his work his crap, and want to ignore him, then that's
their right.

It's hypocritical to accuse people of being "political" because they disagree
with him, when he himself is unfairly accused of being a pawn to the oil
industry.

~~~
inimino
I see. It seems we disagree on the substance of what is at issue here.

> But if people think his work his crap, and want to ignore him, then that's
> their right.

Of course. That is not at issue.

From the article: "My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the
right to share this research without risk to my career. Instead, my research
was under constant attack for years by activists, journalists and
politicians."

The allegation is not that people are disagreeing with him in good faith
because they think his work was crap. The allegation is that people are
shunning him and his research because it is inconvenient. Whether that is true
or not, that is what is at issue.

In your top-level comment, you don't take issue with his allegations. Rather,
you seem to suggest that whatever happened is acceptable because his research
is open to misinterpretation and misuse. You also claim he misconstrued
something as censorship, but what he claimed was an attack on his career,
which you didn't address.

So, my argument is that you appear to be justifying something that shouldn't
be justified (and may or may not have occurred) and you haven't actually
engaged with what is being alleged.

~~~
vinhboy
Yes we disagree. I think people ignore him because they think he's wrong. Not
because they are not political. I am sure some are, but not all.

And because his "wrongness" is being used to spread misinformation, people
have to actively "attack" him to curtail the spread of that misinformation.

~~~
inimino
> people have to actively "attack" him to curtail the spread of that
> misinformation.

This is really where we disagree. If he's wrong, then the people who know
better should show that he's wrong, and make the point by point rebuttal easy
to find and then point people to it. Don't attack the messenger. If you do
that, people will repeat the message and assume that something is being
covered up.

The people who claim to be on the side of science should be above playing
these kinds of political games, and need to be very cautious about even the
appearance of impropriety.

I think the idea that science in all its glorious mess needs to be packaged as
neater and cleaner than it is, and minority opinions hidden away from the
credulous public, actually does much greater harm to the public understanding
of scientific issues than any amount of actual divergent opinions that people
might come across.

If climate skeptics want to look for opinions outside the mainstream, correct
or not, they will find them. That gives them one data point in support of
their beliefs. If the messenger is under attack, that just gives them another.

~~~
vinhboy
I put "attack" in quotes because those are his own words. Again, I re-iterate
my point, he sees them as an "attack". I do not believe people who dismiss his
ideas set out to "attack" him.

> The people who claim to be on the side of science should be above playing
> these kinds of political games, and need to be very cautious about even the
> appearance of impropriety.

You are setting a high bar for them, and that's fine. But doesn't that mean
the author of this article should also meet that high bar?

He's accusing people who disagree with him as playing politics, but his
article does not provide proof. In essence, he is playing politics himself.

I don't think that's fair.

You are right about the "one data point" part. This article is just another
baseless data point for climate change deniers. And that's a problem.

Actually, I went back to research the article a bit more clearly. He really
should not have used that wikileak email as evidence. It really discredits him
more than anything:

[https://wikileaks.org/podesta-
emails/emailid/19569](https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/19569)

------
themgt
From Wikipedia on Piekle [1]: _" Any conceivable emissions reductions
policies, even if successful, cannot have a perceptible impact on the climate
for many decades", and from this he concludes that, "In coming decades the
only policies that can effectively be used to manage the immediate effects of
climate variability and change will be adaptive."_

This sort of do-nothing fatalism is enormously disingenuous and dangerous, and
his WSJ op-ed badly understates his criticism as mainly about current weather
effects.

The fact that Pielke's dad was also a high-profile climate change denier can't
help, given the fact these sort of "decades to take effect!" arguments have
themselves now been made for decades as part of a typical
corporate/politically-motivated FUD campaign.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke,_Jr](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke,_Jr).

~~~
surfmike
From his op-ed: "I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of
greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax."

~~~
woogiewonka
Big oil WANTS carbon tax as this would create predictability and stability
albeit at a cost. What big oil doesn't want is unpredictable policy - policy
that Washington think tanks want to put in place. Right wingers are terrified
of progressive policies and this Pielkle fella is not doing the world any
favors by advocating for useless policies such as a carbon tax. He may have
good intentions and may be factually correct in his observations about lack of
clear evidence but this doesn't change the fact that his work is being used to
hinder climate progress.

~~~
surfmike
What's wrong with wanting predictability and stability? Right now oil
companies have little incentive to invest in alternate energy given the costs,
and a carbon tax would change the cost structure for the future and give them
a direct financial incentive to transition to non-carbon energy sources.

Re: carbon tax being useless, how so? Of course the level of the carbon tax
matters too, but it doesn't make sense that directly taxing something wouldn't
reduce the amount of it.

------
brohoolio
"Although it is too soon to tell how the Trump administration will engage the
scientific community"

I'm gonna go out here on a limb and say Trump hasn't done a good job so far.
He's claimed that vaccines cause autism. Something that's been debunked over
and over. Skeptism about vaccines has made things much more difficult for
immunocompromised kids. My friend's kid had cancer and the low rates of
vaccination in town made things much more dicey for them.

The second is Trump has claimed that China is responsible for making up global
warming.

Right now you've got the house committee on science tweeting out brietbart
links.

The key will be funding. Will he continue to fund science? Science in many
ways is the new manufacturing. Research universities are among the largest
employers in the Midwest. It's not all white collar jobs. There are many
different types of jobs that work towards creating knowledge.

~~~
vinhboy
I don't think you are going out on any limb at all. That statement is
terrible, because of all the reasons you listed.

I think it's pretty dishonest to pretend it's still a "wait and see" kinda
thing.

------
pastProlog
Fortune's Global 500 top 10 is:

    
    
      Walmart $482B in revenue a year
      State Grid $329B
      China Natural Petroleum $299B
      Sinopec $294B
      Shell $272B
      ExxonMobil $246B
      Volkswagen $236B
      Toyota $236B
      Apple $233B
      BP $255B
    

Six oil companies and two car companies. Trillions of dollars in revenue every
year, from oil and other fossil fuels. They have massive think tanks,
government lobbyists, media and PR reach etc. They're the center of the world
economy and world power.

Yet this climate denier ("I'm not really a climate denier!") writes for the
Wall Street Journal (Rupert Murdoch's financial publications are a great place
for peer reviewed science - well this guy is a poli-sci major anyhow) about
how he is being persecuted by powerful forces.

Please. These people are so out of control they're going to burn up the world.
I see someone who mentioned the California droughts, Tennessee etc. was
downvoted.

The inertia of these companies at the center of the world economy is to keep
doing what they're doing, which is suicidal. Solar etc. has advanced to where
changes can be made which are less drastic than expected, but not with this
fellow and his supporters here.

As America is going to shit, it's expected that even the silver lining of
Silicon Valley's vanguard here are blind to reality and swallow some poli-sci
majors climate denial propaganda to Murdoch's paper instead of reading peer-
reviewed scientific papers. It goes along with the downward trajectory of the
US - the low US growth, crummy unicorns etc. Our incoming pussy-grabbing
president used this assessment as his campaign platform, and I agree with him
to the limited extent that America is no longer a great country.

I have to cast my eyes to the People's Republic of China to see not only
robust growth, but the solar, nuclear and other renewable energy sources.
Along with their enormous economic growth over the past few decades, it will
be the Chinese who will save things for us, while Americans stumble into the
muck of Trump, climate denial and what you can see going on here.

~~~
dang
Using Hacker News primarily for political, ideological, or religious
controversy is an abuse of the site. Those things drown out what we want here,
which is thoughtful conversation and intellectual curiosity.

Since we asked you to stop doing this and you didn't, we've banned your
account.

We're happy to unban accounts that people give us reason to believe will
follow the site rules in the future, so if you'd like to fix this, you're
welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com. But please don't create new accounts to
break the site rules with.

