More Things Not Yet Noted

by Cliopatria

History Carnival XXXVIII goes up at Frog in a Well/Japan on Friday 1 September. Send nominations of exemplary history posts since 15 August to dresner*at*hawaii*dot*edu or use the form.

Hazel Rowley,"A Sort of Homecoming," The Nation, 11 September, reviews Middle Passage by Brown's prize-winning historian James T. Campbell, Kevin Gaines' African Americans in Ghana, and Ekow Eshun's Black Gold in the Sun.

Stein Ringen,"The American Seen," TLS, 30 August, reviews Claus Offe, Reflections on America: Tocqueville, Weber and Adorno in the United States.

Two pieces in yesterday's Boston Globe are worth noting:
Alex Beam,"MIT's Inconvenient Scientist," discusses attempts to suppress the work of an MIT scientist who challenges widespread beliefs about global warming. If Richard Lindzen is promoting fake science, his accusers should take their case and evidence to his superiors at MIT. Otherwise, let the debate continue!
Jeff Jacoby,"Sacrificing Truth on the Altar of Diversity," discusses the practice of faking disability for illustrations in children's textbooks. It's not exactly like putting blackface on white models to represent diversity, but it isn't exactly unlike it, either.

Finally, farewell for the time being, at least, to our colleague, Caleb McDaniel, and farewell to his Mode for Caleb. As always, he explains his reasoning better than I could, so go over and read it. It's a very exciting time for the McDaniels. We wish them the very best and look forward to the possibility of Caleb's rejoining us in the future.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Ralph E. Luker - 8/31/2006

Well, yes. If Lindzen is guilty of peddling bad science, as his critics charge, that seems to me to be a very serious business. The charge goes to the heart of his professional credibility. If his critics have hard evidence that it is true, then it seems to me that they're obliged to take it to authorities at MIT and let Lindzen's peers in the science community there review the evidence. If the charge his critics make is a mere rhetorical flourish, intended only to dismiss without evidence claims counter to their own, then we know that they're not serious.

William Redfern - 8/31/2006

The conclusion of the NAS/NRC report, which is cited in the link provided by Andreas Goroch, is actually very weak on the question of causality. This is something that may be lost on those who rely on press versions of the report's conclusion, rather than the report itself. I therefore include the money quote from the report:

"The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability."

It's a short distance, indeed, from "likely mostly due", to "not yet established". That is Lindzen's view. In fact, he thinks that the summary conclusion, as with the IPCC summary for policymakers, goes beyond the underlying science. In any case, he need not be far off from the weak "consensus" conclusion of the NAS/NRC in order to disagree with it, it being as weak as it is.

Those who seem most convinced of human-induced global warming or convinced against it, seem least aware of the science and the uncertainties involved.

This reminds me of Kingman Brewster's quip about why Yale is such a repository of knowledge. Freshman arrive knowing everything, and leave not sure of anything.

Critics of Lindzen's views, within the scientific community, have indeed "put up". What is troubling is when it is forwarded that dissent from a so-called "consensus" is considered, by scientists and publicists alike, a mark against the bona fides or the sincerity of the man, or is substituted for direct criticism of his science.

I think that is what Mr. Luker was addressing. Lindzen should be criticized from a scientific point of view, not a public relations point of view.

Ralph E. Luker - 8/31/2006

Did you actually read what I said? I said that Lindzen's critics should put up or shut up. It was your own predispositions that caused you to read that statement (if you read it) as routine PC rhetoric.

Andreas Goroch - 8/31/2006

I think your analysis of history is great, but you seem to have a contrarian PC view of global warming. A rather extended discussion of Lindzen's views can be found at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzens-hol-testimony/
There are more similar comments at other web locations.

William Redfern - 8/31/2006

Lindzen is an interesting case. He's the youngest person ever elected to the National Academy of Sciences in Atmospheric Sciences.

In 1989 he wrote a critique of then current global warming theories, but it was rejected without review by the journal Science, on the basis that it would not be of interest to its readers.

Lindzen then submitted it to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, where it was reviewed, then re-reviewed, then reaccepted, before publication. The editor then solicited authors to rebut his arguments. Just to add a little irony, Lindzen's paper was attacked in the journal Science (the paper that had previously rejected it as of no interest) even before it was published by the BAMS.

Apparently, an attack on Lindzen's as yet unpublished paper was considered of interest, while the paper itself was not.

Lindzen is often portrayed as a global warming skeptic, as though he is skeptical of the fact that the globe has warmed of late. He is not. He says it has warmed. He says atmospheric CO2 has increased. He says it is an infrared absorber. And he also says that the globe has not warmed nearly as much as the facts of CO2 as an absorber would indicate, suggesting to him that humans aren't necessarily the major driving force behind global warming.

In fact, the natural variability of the global climate, absent human influence, is so poorly understood (in Lindzen's view) that attributing warming to emissions on purely theoretical grounds is just a case of throwing one's hands in the air.

Other conclusions, of course, are possible. One is that man, through the emission of aerosols, has been limiting the warming due to CO2 emissions.

There is a great deal of debate and research on the relative efficacy of CO2, aerosols, clouds, and solar variability in affecting global climate, and what the future therefore holds. What isn't debated is whether there is global warming of late.

The Laurie David mentioned in Alex Beam's opinion piece, who calls Lindzen a "shill", is one of the producers of Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth. She has described her "conversion experience" as resulting from a conversation she had with RFK Jr (the eminent atmospheric scientist), whom she calls "Bobby".

It was evidently something of a religious experience, as Laurie David's science background consists of a degree in journalism from Ohio University (which you won't find in her on-line bio).

There seems to be a certain tension both within the sciences and without between encouraging debate and encouraging consensus. There needs to be a lot more research done on the informal methods that the sciences use to shape a "consensus", and the extent to which they mirror or differ from the methods of achieving consensus outside the sciences.

Jonathan Dresner - 8/31/2006

It's interesting to see the materials from the Globe, which is owned by the NYT parent company.

I remember Jacoby fondly, my first experience, really, of a firm conservative who I thought was actually smart and shared my values, if not my views. Then he went and got into trouble...

Damned if you do, damned if you don't: you know the textbook companies would catch hell if they used "real" disabled models who didn't look as pretty as the other models (can you believe we're talking about children here?), for making the disabled look "ugly." It's a business, not a scholarly venture: their bread is buttered on the most innoffensive side possible, at least that's where the smart money is.