All the books that I have seen about the science and economics of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalistsâ€â€most of whom are not scientistsâ€â€holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the be-lief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.
I don’t believe it has replaced socialism, exactly, but I agree with him, otherwise.
Image from Ben Baldwin
He sounds like a cocksucker. For real what he’s saying is yes anti-capitalism but think bigger, hippies.
Reagan’s failure to bring about the apocalypse left the world full of aimless, bellowing, end-is-nigh assholes, and crazy abhors a vacuum.
/punnage
Environmentalism was killed and gutted by socialists back in the 70s. The wear it’s skin as a disguise now.
Freeman Dyson has six children.
The AGW heresy will not be suppressed as easily as Dyson would prefer. Of course, Dyson somehow misses the ridiculous inconsistency inherent in holding social justice as a key tenent in the worship of an amoral and indifferent nature.
Of course, Dyson somehow misses the ridiculous inconsistency inherent in holding social justice as a key tenent in the worship of an amoral and indifferent nature.
I wonder if that is why so many modern environmentalists are rabid proponents of keeping man completely out of all parks and nature preserves- the inconsistency isn’t a problem if your followers are ignorant of the realities of the food chain.
I think I would say that Conservation was what was killed and gutted and renamed Environmentalism when the socialists needed another “skin suit” to match the one they made of the Democratic Party back then also. Other “kills” would be the academia, the unions and major media companies.
Definitely a cocksucker I think.
I think I need to pull up my copy of the musical HAIR and listen once again to songs about “social injustice”.
Oh, yes, hf, I agree. Just because I agree with him on this limited analysis, that doesn’t mean that I don’t think he’s a cocksucker.
Yes, but read that again and tell me how he’s not expressly advocating a theocracy. It’s creepy and now I have to go to my safe place for a little while.
I think I would say that Conservation was what was killed and gutted and renamed Environmentalism
You are probably right. For a brief moment there it seemed to me Environmentalism was going to be a more apolitical pagan/druid kind of conservation, but I was doing a lot of drugs back then, so who can be sure.
Freeman Dyson is definitely not a cocksucker. Back in the day he was one of the leading lights of the disarmament movement, and I was very suspicious of him until I actually read his book Weapons and Hope. Although I ultimately disagreed with its conclusions, Dyson’s arguments were well crafted and very, very compelling and bullshit-free. Reading him forced me to make every pro-defense argument I held at the time better. Dyson is a very accomplished scientist, and argues in good faith. If every anti-war activist were just a little more like him, the marketplace of ideas would be a far more productive place.
If you haven’t seen them, check out this interview on YouTube about climate models (the second part is here) and then come back here and tell everyone if you still think he’s a cocksucker.
yours/
peter.
I already went and read stuff. He mostly just wants to take the AGW debate and channel it more better and you can tell he’s concerned that scientists are gonna get burned by getting too far out ahead with this crap. But he’s still a creepy transnationalist freak that thankfully is old and will die soon. He was a great scientist though.
Him and Warren Buffett. Old and creepy.
Well a while back when I first discovered that Dyson was an AGW skeptic like me, I realized I wasn’t a crank. Now when a global warmener calls me an ignorant anti-science hick I just smile knowing that his or her reputation is not going to survive the bonfire of his vanity.
That’s why he’s creepy though. He knows AGW is a leftist scam and he still pitches his tent in their camp. You get the feeling that it’s precisely his vanity more than anything else that leads him to share his skepticism just so, but he’s not really all that concerned with derailing the AGW train. He’s not a stand up and be counted kind of guy I don’t think.
Also… Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. rings really phony I think. What he means is that he is a skeptic who is a passionate environmentalist so it’s ok if you keep giving him awards and shit.
bmoe,
On spot!: “Environmentalism was killed and gutted by socialists back in the 70s.
The[y] wear it’s skin as a disguise now.” I can a young George Soros in his creepy, cold, stone basement sewing it together – Silence of the Dembs.
bmoe,
I can SEE a young George Soros in his creepy…
“For a brief moment there it seemed to me Environmentalism was going to be a more apolitical pagan/druid kind of conservation, but I was doing a lot of drugs back then, so who can be sure.”
Agreed, and you’re not the only one who did a lot back then. :-)
May I urge that we think about this rhetorical trope, “…â€â€holds the moral high ground…” a moment?
Isn’t this just a positive indication of yet another metaphorical “war on such and such” so beloved by the statist, all knowing-all planning among us?
But isn’t right action first a matter of recognizing the limitations of our knowledge? Forthrightly admitting our fundamental ignorance where we recognize it and remaining careful to keep a weather eye out for Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknowns” ? Not sloppily claiming to know, through belief, what we do not know?
B Moe,
I’m with you.
No, environmantalism hasn’t replaced socialism, it is just socialism’s shiny new name.
OT, but I just happened to stumble upon an HBO show called “Hacking Democrarcy”.
Pretty much a low blow at Bush (what a surprise!), but very interesting, never-the-less.
Anyone who knows an even half competent “hacker”, has known all along that “computer voting” is wide open to any kid in his Momma’s basement.
Even though the undercurrent is about “Bush screwed us”, it is a quite frightening film about just how easy it is for any hacker to “edit” election results. Like, say, in 90 seconds.
If you get a chance, it is a thoroughly engrossing film.
Ok folks, I may be way out in left field on this one, but from my reading of this, I thought Dyson was pounding pretty hard on the AGW folks.
For starters, adherents to the secular religion of AGW alarmism pride themselves on being strictly rational creatures. In his comparison to religion, he points out that they are less rational and scientific than their opponents.
Secondly, in lumping them all under the tent of environmentalism (nee conservationism), and then associating environmentalism with ethics, he denies any moral argument against AGS skepticism.
Third, in constructing the arguments in this fashion, he undermines the value of the consensus of authority held by the IPCC et al, without opening up a specific debate on which side is actually “right”.
Fourth, by noting the idea of biotechnological sequestration, it even removes the pressing time-sensitivity for aggressive measures (by suggesting that a quick fix is possible without all this nonsense in the short term), while even pointing out that aggressive measures will cause more harm than its worth.
IF you think about it from the pro-AGW point of view, how could you possibly argue against anything in the article without making yourself out to be even more of a enviro-fascist extremist?
I think he’s done a great job of clearing out the debate space for AGW skeptics to make a case, simply by saying, they should make a case and be heard.
I could be wrong — I read this last night and reread it this morning — but I think a lot of responses here show more of a reflexive allergy to AGW alarmism, than anything said in the review.
It’s not an accident that he’s eighty-five and not a climatologist, BRD. You make the mistake I think of assuming that AGW people want “the debate” to be settled. They don’t. They need “skeptics” so they can reiterate ad nauseum. Innocuous skeptics, to be sure.
Happyfeet,
I can see how one might buy into a Orwellian-like view of AGW people who would (with apologies to 1984) who might say “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever”.
However, from just reading the article, I think he’s telling the AGW folks that they can’t ignore skeptics, the debate isn’t settled, and they can’t just shout it down. If you think about it, comparing AGW to Muslim (or even worse, Christian) fundamentalists is a pretty sever provocation, and further, assigning AGW skeptics the role of the moderate Muslims (or more interestingly, leftist Christians), he challenges them in a way that is hard for AGW folks to defend against.
I don’t personally see how his accelerated decrepitude and lack of climatologist props play into this anymore than all of our collective dissertations about climate or plans for weekend barbecues fit in to this perspective.
Cause it’s easy to dismiss old people, BRD. nishi taught me that with her teachings. Freeman is a lot sincere I imagine, though I for real do suspect that his motivation is that he wants to be remembered as being a bright, visionary guy, not a blinkered AGW shill.
But the point is, Freeman didn’t publish that article, the NY Review of Books did. They picked an old, idiosyncratic codger that’s most famous for saying hey let’s build a bubble around the sun.
I’m not articulating this well I don’t think. But yes you have to have “skeptics” so that global warming is politically salient I think.
Oh. And also they picked a not-climatologist.
Happyfeet,
Well, I do see your point – essentially using someone who is a “strawman by virtue of age” if I understand you correctly.
On the other hand, at least in some of the things I work on, this allows me to distribute a pretty subtle argument by authority that doesn’t do the much more difficult task of convincing the zealots that they are wrong, but the far more useful bit of suggesting to the less perfectly committed that the issue is not clear cut, despite what the zealots might say.
You have to remember that NASA climate guy, James Hansen, who went gadding about with the implied cloak of NASA credibility and yammering about climate change? Dyson is a well enough known and respected figure in the space community that he undermines the strength of his support in that same space science community.
B.R.O.,
Good points all,imo. I do think we’ve got a lot of tangled hair teasing to do though. Scientifically minded AGW skeptics do have a lot of work to do. And they can get on with it. But Dyson’s sentence “…And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. …” isn’t a proposition about anything remotely scientific. When I see statements like “…This is a religion that we can all share…” my own, unscientific skepticism kicks in and says “Hold on a minute, what’s this? Let’s look at this a little closer and see if we have the first clue what we’re talking about here.” Knee jerk, yeah, but I think, necessary.
It’s just the text. I’m sure he’s a very good person. But… The main point is religious rather than scientific. No you prick the main point is that the science is crap and you know it and it should piss you off not spark a reverie on developing a secular environmentalist ethos. It’s kind of like how Mr. Reynolds is all careful to stake out one of those “even if the skeptics are right, what we should do is…” positions. No. Intellectual fraud is BAD. Scientists responsible for AGW fraud should be fired and mocked and shunned and have their cars keyed and nobody invites their kids to any birthday parties.
#17
He’s not a stand up and be counted kind of guy I don’t think.
Most pacifists aren’t.
There is global warming. I seriously doubt that it is caused or even exacerbated by human activity. The whole solar system is warming up. There are more red spots, or soon to red spots on Jupiter, and the polar ice caps on Mars seem to be receeding. Which does not account for the fact that this is one of the coldest springs I’ve ever experienced.
…And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound.
No they’re not. They’re based on theft.
It’s cold here today too. The turtles don’t get to go outside today I don’t think.
I think what he’s doing is he’s calling the alarmists on the notion that their belief isn’t inherently more rational or scientific, but is purely a moral argument, and not a particularly new or interesting one at that. If one goes about saying that the AGW folks are bad, wrong people, it gives them something to fight against and argue. Dyson does something that is much more of a jujistu-kind of block that redirects the AGW alarmism into the realm of religion, and takes away their prime defense of scientific impeachability.
The point of this article isn’t to argue, per se, against or for AGW, but rather to undermine the heretofore perceived invincibility of the AGW alarmist argument, and do so using it’s own strengths against it, so that there is no effective way to simply shout it down.
I personally have no idea what the guy is like, but as I read it, he’s saying that all the AGW stuff is a religion and is not science, and when you get down to questions of science, your science isn’t that great because you shut down two or three entire sets of questions as being heresy, and the most “holy” of solutions are a flat, net loss to humanity any way you slice it.
I went here to make a point but I thought this comment was pricesless so I got distracted:
Happyfeet,
I just went to the link you posted, and I love the tone of the critique of Dyson. You ultimately have to go back to one of the fundamentals of polemics – don’t worry about changing your opponent’s mind, argue with them in order to change the mind of uncommitted bystanders. The shrillness and tone of the response to Dyson discredit the AGW folks, while the content of the essay itself introduces doubt. In concert, it’s a potent combination to erode the conventional wisdom.
Oh. *priceless* … and also I don’t want to talk about this anymore and I take back the part where I called him a cocksucker but I still think he comes across as kind of a dilletante, which is sad cause if he got serious he could really kick their teeth in I think.
Oh. I didn’t see your reply. Apologies I should just say I am tired and grumpy from the not sleeping and I feel bad for probably maligning Mr. Dyson overmuch.
Happy,
No worries – I give you credit for not being a bastard. I agree with Colin Feguson school of democratic debate “God Bless You, You Magnificent Cranky Bastards”. I think if we both take a read tomorrow, it will be interesting to see if the point of his article is that he essentially calls AGW a religion, rather than a fact.
Cheers!
BRD
Cheers you too. I did get intrigued and I’ll be getting learned up on Dyson more better.
How are your turtles, feets? I don’t think I’ve seen you mention them lately.
But B.R.O., while I can agree with you as to Dyson’s gambit here, what in the history of religions makes you think the holders of those religious tenets can be persuaded to change before they proceed to steamroll everyone within reach, whether to deficit or gain, no matter what “and so say we all”?
Dyson can’t be all that bad – he was an advocate of building a nuclear-bomb propelled spaceship. And far as I’m concerned, anything that includes lots of nuclear bombs being set off for recreation is good stuff.
Granted, he still might be a statist ninny – I don’t know his body of thought too well. But I will stand by my reading of his review until at least midnight.
Sdferr,
Because in the case of AGW, the proponents think they have science on their side, and in so doing, leave themselves open on this.
OK, imagine a super PC-multiculturalist person.
Now they might say that they’re all for women’s rights.
They might also say that we have no business dictating morals to hyper regressive sharia governments.
But because they are multiculturalist, it doesn’t matter which way they turn – they’re wrong. They either hate women or are racist. Granted, they seldom get around to realizing their main premise is dumb, but it gives any opponent a “befuddle opponent for free” card.
There will always be a few diehard AGW people. Before AGW, they were just regular “back to the land” Luddites and Rousseauian noble savage sorts. That can’t be helped. However, the vast majority of AGW worshippers aren’t deeply committed, and through things like this, their hold on policy and power can be diminished such that they can’t really do any real big damage.
Remember the genius of the founding fathers. You need not win, you simply need to slow things up enough that the entropy inherent in the system causes the effort to grind to a halt.
BRD
So am I getting that it won’t be persuasion (I thought not), but the certain dreadful economic impact on “the vast majority…who aren’t deeply committed”, such as for instance, we are beginning to see as the energy supply side problem dawns on people as their frustration at higher fuel prices causes them to pay more attention to matters they ordinarily find too boring to think about?
Sdferr,
In part. There are two other things that the article supports.
First, for the vast mass of the semi-committed, the following “Just because some folks say the science is settled doesn’t mean it’s settled. In fact, doesn’t the shrill tone of dismissal rather suggest it’s more of a religious argument than a science one. And if the science isn’t even agreed upon or well understood, the fact that some folks want it to be doesn’t mean we all need to rush off and wreck the economy – particularly if those who would tear everything down can’t even be compelled to defend their own arguments rationally.”
The second point, is that asking questions about AGW is not some sort of oil-company shill troglodyte that hates science and wants to see little bunnies used to pave highways. Rather, that neither the arguments for or against AGW have any inherent moral or environmental superiority to the other. So listening to – and even agreeing with AGW skeptics – doesn’t mean you hate science or hate the environment. And coincidentally, anyone who says that it does is just a religious zealot.
BRD
Sdferr,
To add something quickly, arguing against AGW directly will instantly put up a lot of people’s backs up and devolve into 382,835 different cites, premade talking points and so on. What he does here is the more subtle task of undermining the foundation of certainty that animates the zealot point of view.
Or, to quote from the article:
BRD
Oh. The turtles are nice and green cause they’ve been getting sun. The big news is that the Grow Your Own store where I’m gonna get them a professional uv lamp with lots of coverage has taken down the sign that says “Buzz For Entry”. (Ha. Get it? I was so not amused by that.) So now I can just walk in. For some reason I really didn’t want to ring a doorbell and have someone answer the door and give me some appraising look as to what extent I looked like he who needed to Grow His Own. You gotta figure it’s potheads and media people and Californians and the occasional AIDS/cancer patient what wanders in. Oh and the other day this twenty-something douchebag with a Lamborghini. I just want my turtles to be happy is all I’m not one of your loser customers. I know it sounds overly self-conscious but the Grow Your Own store is right next to the marxist pacifica dirty hippy radio station and not far from the “Vitamin Consultant” and the hippy dippy breakfast/lunch just folksy “Good Neighbor” restaurant that I’ve only gone to a couple times but both times it was just not a me kind of place and also they don’t have waffles just pancakes and their french fries suck. So I usually just pass through that bit of street a lot purposefully and without a lot of eye contact. If I want hippy dippy I’ll move back to Austin cause they do it way more better there.
Sdferr,
In respect to your earlier statement “But Dyson’s sentence “…And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. …†isn’t a proposition about anything remotely scientific.”, note that Dyson also makes the point that AGW does not equal environmentalism. Rather, he makes a point much closer to the one that Wahhabism is not Islam (or that being a Ronulan is not the same as being a Republican), and anyone who tells you different is a zealot who is arguing from a perspective of religious zealotry and cannot rationally defend their proposition.
BRD
Great, glad to hear that they’re healthy. Turtles and tortoises are cool. I know they’re just reptiles with brains the size of a match head, but somehow they always look like they’re thinking deep thoughts.
Did you see Dan’s link? That made my day.
BRD (sorry about the B.R.O. misattribution above, some kinda brainfart I hadn’t noticed until just now)
Both your points in 47 are true as far as I can see. And valuable with regard to some people. The sticking point for me is just how many people, who are they, do they play a substantial role in the political to-ing and fro-ing that underlays a mass movement such as AGW?
How did this AGW ball get to rolling down the hill in the first place? Was it scientist types who pushed it down? Or Al Gore types who took the little snowball the scientists had made, carefully rolled it around on top of the hill to turn it into a boulder and then sent it over the edge?
(notice how my crap metaphor can’t be undone once the sucker’s rolling? sorry.)
Yeah, I saw that. It’s amazing that the tortoise is accepting it that way.
ball get to rolling…crap metaphor
Well, Gore is definitely the dung beetle of American politics.
Sdferrr,
It’s really more of the second. In very general terms, I’ve been involved in a major project that touches on the question, but by using the tack of uncertainty, rather than skepticism, I’ve been able to argue (successfully) that we can remain agnostic on AGW and still advocate for our proposal. This means that the two are not tied together politically, and that a) we don’t need to pick up an unnecessary extra fight, and b) we have not staked our outcome on the success or failure of the AGW argument.
Ultimately, the success of a political agenda depends in large part on the aggregation of political influence and interest. In using the kind of approach Dyson permits, it serves to hinder this aggregation process and limits the ability of the AGW crowd to assemble the minimum winning coalition needed to do something really dramatically stupid.
BRD
Enviromentalism:AGW::ParticularReligion:Sect very good. Is there significant pushback on the religion/enviromentalism identification from the enviro crowd?
To the extent you are already involved in waging this political controversy to hold back the zealots, I say, more power to you and may you succeed before too long.
Sdferr,
And to flesh something out, there are tackling a mass movement (and with apologies to nuclear war strategists everywhere) they fall into three categories:
Blunting (Bravo), which is chewing through the vast mass of the foot soldiers and attriting the opponent’s forces to the point they are ineffective.
Retardation (Romeo), which is disrupting the command link between the decisionmaking authorities and the forces in the field.
Decapitation (Delta), which is eliminating the decision making ability of an opponent force as a whole.
There is way to much of a pop culture conventional wisdom on AGW to make the prospect of arguing the vast mass of people to change their minds 180 degrees exceedingly difficult.
The absolute fervor of the true believers and AGW zealots is such that any conversion process would take forever and be a huge investment of effort.
So, a strong option is reducing the faith of the foot soldiers in the cause and attacking the legitimacy of the leadership, which has an effect equivalent to undermining the communications network needed to get vast masses of people to act as efficient or effective proxies for the decisions of leadership figures.
Or to put it more distinctly religious terms, if AGW is a manifestly religious argument, then as the Adversary, why not spread doubt and undermine faith, particularly since they style themselves as being imminently rational creatures and advocates of science?
BRD
Undermining the faith was what got Soc. sentenced to hemlock. Watch your back.
It’s the great difference between being Martin Luther King Jr., and Bayard Ruston (or for that matter, the difference between Bush and Rove). Folks generally cultivate a homicidal antipathy towards the guy at the front of the line – not the guy who organized the marching order. ;)
So I should be telling the guy in front of you to watch his back? No, I dint just say that out loud, did I?
Aha!! I see you have a very good practical understanding of Washington! :)
Lived there for thirty years, sigh.
Sdferr,
Out on parole, or did they just not release the hounds andsound the alarm yet?
I don’t know how much I mind it here, but it’s an education, I can say that much.
BRD
Oh I don’t believe I’ll ever be missed there. I escaped by accident, really. Chasing work and a beautiful woman. It is a beautiful city though, in many ways, or was, back in my time there. When I was a kid I sang at Church of the Reformation behind the Supreme Court and when our service was done us kids (our parents were all singing in the next service) would high tail it down to a Pennsylvania Ave. SE diner, get coffee and doughnuts and then head for the bowels of the capitol to ride the train back and forth and generally make nuisances of ourselves for the capitol guards. Good times circa 1964. Now I hear you can’t get anywhere near the place.