11 September 2009
Debate with Marc Morano
Looks like I'll be debating Marc Morano in Washington, DC in March. The event will be hosted by AEI and moderated by Andy Revkin. We'll make sure that it is made available online for those who cannot attend in person. We'll also be negotiating a suitable resolution to be debated (feel free to offer suggestions in the comments), which won't be settled until after we see what happens in Copenhagen and with U.S. cap and trade legislation. I'll provide updates on the event as things get organized. Thanks to AEI and Andy Revkin for helping to make this happen.
28 comments:
Stepping up to this was a great idea. I'm glad to read the debate will be available online. It's wonderful Revkin stepped up as moderator too.
And for the winner of the debate...a Joe Romm action figure, complete with vitriol-spewing poison pen!
I imagine that AEI makes the location favor Morano, but Andy probably would favor you Roger. Seems about fair.
A big disagreement between you two seems to be on the science. Perhaps a good debate question would be to what extent should (climate) policy be based on (climate) science, and how could the governments or anyone determine what the best available science sais? Marc seems to think blogs are best placed for that. I sincerely hope you don't agree, and that would make an interesting debate (and one that you could hardly lose, at least in the eyes of the scientifically minded).
Bart
I'm not sure that's a really useful question. what are you expecting for an answer? 10% economics, 25% science 40% politics 25% engineering of low carbon products? And then can you break down the science fields within science, say 5% biology, 5% decision science, 5% renewable energy technologies (or are technologies not "science" and how does that relate to engineering? yet knowing about them seems very important to produce a policy solution that reduces carbon.)
Bad from good science, in my mind, isn't determined by meetings and publications (although those are certainly important)- it is determined by the science's ability to predict what happens in the real world. Science gains its legitimacy from its relationship to understanding and predicting the results of our manipulations in the real world.
When the timeframe is long- such as economics or climate- it makes predictions more difficult but still science should be ultimately empirical- otherwise, it's an opinion poll of individuals in a discipline.
I'd be more interested in a debate over what actions we might take to those over epistomology. So, I liked Roger's first suggestion that he and Marc debate the carbon tax.
Epistomological arguments like "how could the governments or anyone determine what the best available science sais" always seem to be endless naval gazing exercises.
It's not clear we can tell "the government" or "anyone" how to determine "what the best available science says". After all, the answer depends on what "anyone's" educational background might be. Those who have taken courses in statistical thermodynamics, fluid dynamics and heat transfer might prefer to use different methods than high school students or journalists.
But even if we could tell "the goverment" or "anyone" how to determine what the "best avaialble science says", we then turn to more important questions like: "What are the right questions to answer using the best avaialble science?" or "When deciding whether or not to take some particular governmental action, are the most important questions scientific, as opposed to economic or moral?" or "How do we best distribute the burden and benefits of any particular political decision?"
I think focusing on whether we should take an action is more likely to result in a balance of all important scientific considerations. Meanwhile, scientists can continue to present theories and experimental results at conferences, while "the government" and "anyone" decides how they think those pieces fits into forming an answer to the big question. That question is: "What should we do?"
The guy's web site make him look like a hair-on-fire angry nutter. Let's hope he's got more to offer than a surplus of exclamation points.
If someone doesn't accept the underlying science, how could one possibly even consider a carbon tax?
(it's the other way around of course: one doesn't even consider a carbon tax, and thus one doesn't accept the underlying science.)
Lucia (assuming your comment was directed at me): I'm not interested in epistomolgy either, don't know where you got that impression from.
-8-ourchangingclimate
To suggest that a rejection of a carbon tax implies rejection of some or other science illustrates this fallacy. Many people accept certain science and disfavor a carbon tax (e.g., in favor of, say cap and trade, or alternatively, brute force regulation). Gasoline, alchohol, cigarettes, income, economic exchanges, property, and many other things are taxed. The existence of not one of these taxes depends upon "underlying science."
ourchangingclimate/ Bart(?):
I'm not interested in epistomolgy either, don't know where you got that impression from.
It's obvious where I got the idea. The question you suggested they debate falls in the general category of "How do we know what we know?" That's epistemology.
Debates about "how we know what we know" that tend to be boring (or only interesting to navel gazers.) The only reason I can imagine why Roger and Marc would pick that topic is to stage a boring debate few would attend. No matter who won the debate, the result would have nearly zero impact on the continuuing debate about what we should do.
Roger, Lucia,
To my mind, Marc and his ilk don’t accept the science, because they don’t like the perceived consequences (eg higher taxes, more government regulation). Ie their starting point is not the science, but the policy. From there, they make their way back to the science (or make up their own) that supports their political stance.
My idea is to unveil his stance for what it is, by having him address the question “what should climate policy be based on?” One obvious answer is on the best available science, but apparently Marc doesn’t think so, or if he claims he does, he can only do so by making up his own brand of ‘science’.
Roger can have a splendid argument about the relative merits of a carbon tax compared to those of cap and trade, and Marc would just interrupt by saying “but there is no AGW, so we don’t need either”. Seems rather futile. But then again, perhaps Roger is well placed to get Marc to really address the question why he’s so opposed to any emission reduction measure, without having him blame the science, because that’s a canard.
Bart
What is the exact debate topic, why were you two chosen, and what do you hope to accomplish?
If the debate touches carbon taxes or cap and trade may I recommend addressing Ross McKitrick's "T3" tax. (Tropospheric Temperature Tax) which he calibrated to "the average temperature of the region of the atmosphere predicted by climatologists to be most sensative to CO2."
Bart/ourchanging--
So what if Marc interrupted and said "but there is no AGW, so we don’t need either”? How would that result be futile?
If Marc did that, it would confirm your notion he doesn't believe in AGW and that's his reason for opposing the tax and the audience will learn that's his reason. You'd have the unveiling you claim you want to unveil and you'd know his reason for opposing both cap and trade and a carbon tax has to do with not believing AGW as opposed to some other reason.
This outcome seems a lot more informative than anything that might come out of a debate topic like "how could the governments or anyone determine what the best available science sais".
Out of curiosity, why is this even a goal:
perhaps Roger is well placed to get Marc to really address the question why he’s so opposed to any emission reduction measure, without having him blame the science, because that’s a canard.
So what if Marc 'blames the science" when explaining why he is dead set against emissions?
BTW. I think you should learn to use the word canard properly. "During the 70s, scientists thought the world was cooling" could be called a canard (i.e. false story). But I don't see how "blame science" can really be called a 'canard'.
ourchangingclimate
I believe one of the biggest problems is that academics view themselves as progressive and are biased in that direction.
The Tobis episode on this blog.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/pathologies-in-climate-science-there.html
I imagine I am more left wing than any of the denizens of RealClimate by the way and am an extreme sceptic of the idea of settled AGW science.
I also believe that the finance and insurance industries are majorly promoting and funding AGW because it is in their interests. Exxon are minnows compared with Wall Street.
Our favourite little British war criminal Tony Blair now works for Zurich insurance and J P Morgan Chase promoting global warming. Blair's politics are well to the left of Obama.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3266329.ece
This is my financial AGW page
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/gw/business.htm
""During the 70s, scientists thought the world was cooling" could be called a canard (i.e. false story)."
Lucia, I would certainly hope that they thought it was cooling, because at the time it was. Now, you could say that it would be false to say that scientists agreed that such a trend would continue. Indeed, strangely they seemt o have almost entirely believed (based upon their publication) that the observed trend would soon reverse. But it isn't false to say that they believed it was cooling at the time. That's not a canard at all. It's irrelevant, but not false.
Yourclimate-A carbon tax, cap and trade, etc. are all bad policies regardless of AGW or even catastrophic AGW. The damage to society from artificially inflating energy prices to force reduced consumption would exceed any climate damages period. And they are regressive taxes.
Now, all this is even worse if there is no issue to address. But even without that, those policy ideas are plain terrible. If Roger or anyone else believes otherwise, they are deluded.
Andrew--
I was discussing word use. If a story or report is false, it is a "canard". "Scientiets thought the world was cooling" is a story or report. One can debate whether it is a true or false story. One can discuss whether or not the words are sufficiently precise to distniguish between what was true (i.e. the short term tremd was down) and what was false (scientists did not appear to think that trend would continue). But either way, those who think a story or report is false can call it a "canard" and they will be using the word correctly.
However, Bart called "blame science" a canard. "Blame science" is no a story or report. So whether or not you think science is blameworthy, "blaming science" cannot be a "canard".
How Climate Denialists Like Marc Morano and Anthony Watts, among other
well-intentioned by seriously misguided people, See Climate Change
Evidence, Inspite of it all
by Danny Bloom
Look at it this way: it's as if trustworthy and trusted world
intelligence from scientists and universities have ample aerial photos
of marked trains making their way toward concentration camps in Nazi
Germany during WWII during the Holocaust, photos and written reports
of eyewitnesses of Jews being rounded up in ghettoes for eventual
deportation to said death camps, and the evidence includes German govt
statements about Jews and the Final Solution, intel reports that Jews
were being gassed -- this is in 1941, mind you! -- AND to climate
denialists like Marc and Anthony and Rush and Jacoby who say: "What
Jews?" "What Final Solution?" What death camps?" "That's all leftwing
propaganda, it's not happening, period." "There are no Jews being
rounded up and put on trains for Auschwitz and Treblinka. There are no
showers with poison gas for the deportees; that's all propaganda by
the Holocaust Industry!"
"The intel reports by the anti-Hitler groups on the left and liberal
groups in the middle are mere propaganda to raise money for their onw
war chests," says the climate denialists like Jacoby and Morano and
Watts and Rush Limbaugh. "And Al Gore contributed to this anti-Nazi
propaganda, even though he was not even born yet. Yes he did!"
THIS IS HOW CLIMATE DENIALISTS SEE THE WORLD, IN THEIR
WELL-INTENTIONED YET TWISTED WAY. And Jeff Jacoby is a good friend of
mine, and I mean no disrepect to him by making these comparions. But
if anyone will get it, he will. Marc Morano will get it, but he will
make up a good excuse. Anthony Watts will ban me from commenting on
his blog again. I don't even know Rush.
Roger, are you enjoying letting Danny smear egg on his own face? That's sadistic! :D
Danny
AFAIK the holocaust is the only part of human history which carries a jail sentence for discussing in a critical manner. Would you like to extend that to global warming ? Perhaps narrow it down to the film 'An Inconvenient truth'.
Guantanemo Bay is still operational, I'm sure Mr Gore's business partners Goldman Sachs would be delighted to put up the money. What do you think ?
James Hansen could be the judge and jury as he conjured up the same brilliant imagery as you over coal fired power stations in Britain. He was also very instrumental (as an expert witness) in having protestors found not guilty in court with the defence that they were 'saving the planet'.
To take some of the politics out of instituting a carbon tax, how about specifying a _revenue neutral_ carbon tax?
Ummmm.....debate?
Steve Reynolds-The problem with that is that the whole point of a carbon tax is to punish consumption anmd thus emitting or use the revenue to stimulate alternative energy markets while punishing consumption.
If you just give the money back, what do you think people will use it for? To spend on more exspensive electricity, duh!
In other words, in this situation, no pain=no gain.
A proposal:
This house believes that public policy should have a strictly limited role in directing societal response or adaption to climate change.
Roger, what do you think you and Morano will disagree about?
@Danny Bloom...
Who are you who dare to compare a real tragedy of my people with the silly myth of the anthropogenic global warming and climate change? Why do you resort to this tragedy of my people for covering your lies? Enough is enough… and I say, enough of this brainless comparisons!
Nasif Nahle
Biocab,
If I offended you with my cri de coeur, I apologize to you sir and wish you a Happy Rosh Hashanah, year 4,456,567,009 Shalom Aleichem. On an Earth that is more than 4 billion years old, we should be kind to each other. I do apologize to you sir. I lost relatives there too, you know. Your people are my people. One world, one people. Now if you want to see a world in the year 2500 A.D., according to the Christian reckoning of the calendar, quite short but that's how they do it, then we'd all better learn to get along with each other and stop global warming in its tracks. Can do? No name calling, everyone be civil, let's work together on this, pro and con.
Danny, the problem is Godwin's Law. Invoking Nazis and the Holocaust is a big turn-off for most people, however appropriate the analogy. You can be frustrated with the way things are proceeding, but this method is a no-go strategically speaking.
What happened to Michael Tobis recently is a good example of that (and he didn't even do it on purpose but got smeared heavily): http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009/03/for-second-day-in-row.html
Post a Comment