MIT Skeptic Speaks

Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloane Professor of Meteorology at MIT, takes issue with global warming alarmism and methodologies in “Why So Gloomy?”.

Re: MIT Skeptic Speaks

As a person that believes in our ultimate spiritual nature I know that whatever comes about on our precious planet is okay. As a person that believes that we, individually and collectively create our lives I know that each of has had some part in creating the world in which we live.

Having said that let me say that we, as a species (especially as a “modern”, “controlling” and “we know batter than nature” representation of our species) have not done all we can to “walk gently upon this earth”.

Indigenous and aboriginal peoples, all over the planet, had and have respect for the earth, our mother. They knew and know how to live in a sustainable symbiotic way with the world around them.

To me it doesn’t matter if “global climate change”/”global warming” is really happening or not. To me what matters is that I walk as softly as I possibly can (in my current situation) upon this precious earth.

Our precious planet is alive just as we are and this earth that sustains us will take the action necessary to heal itself in the same way our bodies take the actions necessary to heal themselves.

From my perspective it is important that we act in ways that respect our planet and each other. It is important that we live lives that honor the wonder and glory of the earth on which we remain dependent for physical life.

Adding pollution to our air and water are not in the best interest of our planet and are not in our individual and/or collective best interest. A few people may get rich from activities that foster pollution but the damage done to our globe is not in any way justified by physical wealth for a small minority.

Let us quit building “muscle” cars. Let us build more public transportation. Let us foster more telecommuting. Let us learn to live a life that is more sustainable. This does not have to mean “giving up” those things that are innately important to living a “good life”. It only means being more conscious about the lifestyles we lead. It means making choices that are healthier for us as individuals, as a society and as a species.

To me it doesn’t matter if we, as human beings, have had a significant input into the current change in the climate of the globe or not. Let us stop arguing, stop making excuses, stop procrastinating and start implementing the changes that foster global, societal and personal health. Let us start taking steps to build a world that is sustainable for those who come after us.

We know what to do and we know how to do it. Building more six-lane freeways instead of a quality rapid transit system is not the answer. Spewing more CO2 into the atmosphere instead of being conscious about our air quality is not the answer. Self-love and self-awareness are part of the answer. We can do it one person at a time.

Thanks,

Willowbei

Re: MIT Skeptic Speaks

One of the biggest concerns is that it is not a few that get rich by activities that create pollution but rather that vast numbers of ordinary people will be held in abject poverty if denied the benefits of industry. That’s not a trivial argument, especially if (and I say if) human activity is not driving a disastrous change in climate.

One can certainly agree with the sentiment that it’s a dirty bird that fouls its own nest and, further, that we must cultivate and conserve the resources that we need. However, there are tradeoffs with everything. People always have and always will alter the environment and create waste. I agree we should try to minimize that waste, but at the same time, we shouldn’t trivialize the benefits we enjoy from fossil-fuel driven industry.

It is surely not true that “indigenous and aboriginal peoples” invariably “knew how to live in a sustainable symbiotic way with the world around them.” More often than not they had respect for the forces that they struggled with, though they still created tools to gain an edge against them. Certainly they lived in a “sustainable” way to the extent that they survived for some period, but they often destroyed their environments and had to adapt to changing circumstances or move on. Think, for example, of the extinction of the megafauna of North America, or the fact that some of the continent’s inhabitants used to drive herds of bison off precipices, killing more than they could use. But one doesn’t need the fantasy of the noble savage to argue good husbandry of resources.

The earth is full of diverse organic and inorganic things occurring together within the equilibrium of natural forces. I say equilibrium, but of course it is a dynamic state with some features rather static, many others very dynamic. To hypostasize this into something analogous to a very precisely wrought, self-identified and self-sustaining system such as the human body is fanciful. The earth teems with life, but it is not alive in the way we are.

Re: MIT Skeptic Speaks

Anthony I was hoping you would expand on your closing sentence:

“The earth teems with life, but it is not alive in the way we are.”

Specifically I was looking for the dialectic between how we as an organism are a live and the nature of the Earth's existence.

Re: MIT Skeptic Speaks

Drake,

I’m not sure what kind of elaboration you may be looking for, or what I can provide beyond the succinct but comprehensive characterization I gave.

If there is a room “teeming” with people, would you say the room was alive? My point is that the individuals populating that room are self-sustaining organisms but the “room” is not self-sustaining - it’s just a space those individuals inhabit.

The earth has in common with a living thing that exists in a certain equilibrium but the biostasis of a living thing is self-referent, the equilibrium of the earth is not. It’s simply an agglomeration of phenomena whose relations are basicaly accidental. If my liver fails, my system fails. If some specific organism or group of organisms fail on earth they may well be replaced by others without affecting the overall equilibrium of forces.

In other words, while the earth-as-living-thing may be an attractive metaphor, it is just that: metaphor, not reality. When tested, this metaphor, as with the case of all metaphors, will eventually fail on some crucial point of analogy.

Re: MIT Skeptic Speaks

Anthony,

It is clear that you and I come from very different positions on this whole issue. I accept the quantum physics view that everything is energy and that energy is always changing form. Energy is alive thus everything is alive, in its own way.

To speak specifically regarding the earth I feel it is clear that the earth is alive. We see evidence of it every day in the activity of volcanoes, the weather conditions that are constantly affecting us, the shrinking of glaciers and the expansion of deserts. With your opinion that the earth is not alive I can see how you might disregard my views about taking care of our earth. I do not know, because you have not specifically said, if you feel that our earth sustains us or doesn’t sustain us.

Over the years it has been proven that organic farming methods increase the health of the soil and the nourishment of the crops grown on that soil (a fact you might choose not to accept, and that is your right). Our consumer economy (see my blog for my essay on money) has created a market for chemicals and built up a huge infrastructure to supply those chemicals to farmers. In this we are not only harming ourselves we are harming our earth.

A couple of more comments, please.

Indigenous people are not the ones cutting down the rainforests. It was not native people that ran buffalo off of cliffs (that didn’t start happening until the white man showed up). In general most indigenous cultures realized the wonder of the bounty around them, gave thanks to (whatever creator they recognized) for that bounty and harvested that bounty with great care in order that it should continue. Most indigenous cultures also recognize the vastness of life and respect the life of Mother Earth.

As far as poor people gaining from working at places that pollute our planet, that is an argument that doesn’t wash. We could easily put as many people to work producing products in a cleaner way and helping clean up the pollution we have created. When the pollution load becomes too heavy upon the planet it won’t matter where one works if one can’t breath to work. Knowing what we know about the pollution we (as a species) have produced it is our moral, ethical and logical obligation to begin rectifying the situation ASAP.

You probably disagree with me, but I feel it is important to express what I feel. We need to do everything possible to help our precious planet because it is the future of our survival.

Re: MIT Skeptic Speaks

Willowbei,

I’m delighted that you take the opportunity to express yourself about these important issues. It is with regret that I disagree.

You fail to make any case against my actual arguments as to whether the earth is properly described as “alive” in a non-metaphorical sense. To say “energy is alive thus everything is alive, in its own way” is just an evasion.” You might as well argue that a hammer is alive. Surely there’s a meaningful difference in the way a hammer might be thought alive and the way a squirrel might be.

There is nothing in what I have written to suggest that we shouldn’t behave responsibly with regard to our use of resources and creation of wealth. Whether the earth is “alive” or not, we harm ourselves by ruining the environment we live in. The problem, I submit, is that the choices aren’t necessarily so easy. There are always tradeoffs.

For example, organic farming has various advantages, but it has disadvantages also. Since we consume organic products almost exclusively in my household I know that one of these is cost. The use of fertilizers and pesticides is problematic but it increases production tremendously. I’ve heard it argued persuasively that the world could not produce the quantity of food it does if it relied exclusively on organic methods.

It is simply not true that “we could easily put as many people to work producing products in a cleaner way.” That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to make that happen more often, but if there weren’t economic advantages to doing it the “dirtier” way, people wouldn’t be doing it. That ought to be obvious. You’re right in positing that “when the pollution load becomes too heavy … it won’t matter where one works.” I’m only saying that it’s not a choice of pollution versus no-pollution, it’s a matter of working out the tradeoffs. Great economic benefits flow from industry, along with the waste it produces. It’s easy for the industrialized countries to tell the others they can’t enjoy those benefits.

Indigenous people are not the ones cutting down the rainforests

Well, they’re not the only ones, but traditional slash-and-burn farming is part of the problem today.

It was not native people that ran buffalo off of cliffs (that didn’t start happening until the white man showed up).

That may fit your dogma about the nature of “the white man” versus “native people,” but it’s not true. Here’s the homepage of a Unesco World Heritage site that basically celebrates this technique as practiced by “native people.”

We would probably agree that there is an element of hubris in the modern mentality that replaces awe of the universe with the attitude of regarding it as something to be manipulated. I think we would be allies in asking that we recapture or reinforce that awe of the universe where it is lacking.

That said, I’ll reiterate that good husbandry of resources need not perpetuate the myth of the noble savage. Allow me to critique what you wrote:

In general most indigenous cultures realized the wonder of the bounty around them, gave thanks to (whatever creator they recognized) for that bounty and harvested that bounty with great care in order that it should continue. Most indigenous cultures also recognize the vastness of life and respect the life of Mother Earth.

This is a vast generalization that imposes a current environmentalist way of looking at things on numberless peoples of the past. Where else does this idea come from? Surely “most indigenous cultures” over the history and prehistory of humanity had no concept of environment per se. They no doubt felt at the mercy of what we would call nature. Sometimes they found abundance, sometimes they starved to death. Living in such conditions would certainly inculcate a sense of awe, but it does not mean that people uniformly used resources wisely. It’s just as likely that in many cases population growth resulted in the outstripping of resources leading in some cases to depletion and conflict with other bands/tribes, and in some cases to extinction. It’s all too easy to romanticize the simple life of pre-agricultural pre-industrial peoples. A more sober critique appreciates the benefits and liabilities and, as I said, weighs the tradeoffs.

Certainly “our precious planet,” as you say, “is the future of our survival.” We need to conserve our environment, but it won’t do to simply say we must “do everything possible.” Rather, we have to carefully weigh costs and benefits as we make decisions, realizing that there is no easy answer.

Re: MIT Skeptic Speaks

Anthony,

This dialogue is getting very exciting. I appreciate you sharing your views.

Although I may be a bit naive (in an earthly sense) when it comes to the business of business, I have an underlying belief that we are Beings of infinite possibility, which is one of the things that “What The Bleep do we Know” discusses. I believe, and I hope I never quit believing, that through the infinite power of Universal Oneness we, as human expressions of that infinite and limitless power have, can and will accomplish much more than our human mind wants to think is possible.

When we, as a species, accept our infinite power and use that power wisely there is so much we can do that we have thought we can’t do. Miracles happen every day to someone somewhere on this planet. I believe all things are possible.

As we accept our true spiritual nature we become more morally and ethically (in human terms) directed. As a species, as a culture, as a group, as individuals we can help create a world that honors life to the fullest. I believe that is part of what Zaadz is about.

It is not money that keeps us from producing cleaner power or from “discovering” better ways to feed, clothe and house ourselves and each other, it is our lack of understanding that we are One.

Each person that remembers his/her truth about Oneness helps our planet move closer to all Beings remembering the truth about Oneness.

OK, I have to say something about the hammer analogy. In terms of Oneness a hammer is alive. In terms of energy a hammer is alive. Have you not picked up a hammer and had it feel “just right”? Have you not picked up a hammer and had it feel “strange” or “not right”. I know I have done that. When we are in touch with our Oneness we can feel the aliveness that is in everything. We know when we resonate with something, be it a house, a car, a person or a hammer.

Within our culture we have been taught to disregard our “instincts” (our spiritual connection to all life – Oneness). Some of us are better than others at keeping those instincts in tact. Some of us are working diligently to remember that we have those instincts and how to use them.

It may appear that this dialogue has moved quite a bit from the topic of Global Climate Change, but if we think in terms of Oneness and Spiritual Power and our natural way of creating the world in which we live (consciously or unconsciously) it is part of the same thing.

When we allow ourselves to realize or Oneness and our interdependence upon each other, as well as our uniqueness and our independence, we begin to understand the we have it within our power to take the steps (and they can be as easy or as difficult as we decided they are going to be) necessary to honor ourselves and our physical world.

I guess that is it for today.

Thanks

Re: MIT Skeptic Speaks

Willowbei,

Even if we recognize that energy permeates everything, a hammer is still an inanimate object. Remember my explanation, which hearkens to the systemic character of an organism. A hammer need not be any particular size or any precise shape. It is what it is entirely dependent on the person who forges and finishes it.

I fail to see how the fact that a hammer may or may not feel “right” sheds any light on the question whatsoever. If I pick up a hammer, a rifle or whatever, that doesn’t feel “right,” it just means that whoever made it made it badly. It isn’t sound in its construction or balanced in the distribution of its weight. In one case, a person shaped inanimate matter well, in another case they shaped it badly. It says nothing of the materials, plenty about the artisan.

Frankly, I don’t see what could be the meaning of hammers (or whatever) that could be either right or not within your vision of all things being alive. Would it mean some hammers are alive and some aren’t? That would be the end of “everything is alive.”

I wouldn’t belabor this if it didn’t seem necessary. I still don’t think you have absorbed the essence of my critique of the “Gaia” hypothesis, which is that the earth doesn’t have the same kind of systemic character as a living organism. The resemblance is superficial and the distinction clear. That being the case, one can only apply the hypothesis with justice metaphorically.

One can melt down a hammer and shape it into something else. As with a ball of wax, one could shape it infinitely, separate it into many different shapes and sizes and roll them all back together again. One can’t do that with a squirrel.

Re: MIT Skeptic Speaks

Anthony,

I realized (after the fact) that I made a mistake when I chose to continue with the hammer analogy. To me it is about the same as asking the question, “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” It really doesn’t matter.

What matters most in this wonderful moment of now is that we, as a species, accept our spiritual nature and the divine power that goes with that spiritual nature. When we do that we are tuned into our inner knowing that ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.

Universal intelligence, moving through every part of creation – all Beings everywhere - allows us (when we listen clearly) to know how to accomplish anything we desire.

Finding simple, inexpensive, sensible, workable, practical, innovative and safe ways to clean up our environment, feed, house and cloth every individual on the earth, respect our planet and bring her soil, water and air back into vibrant health and more are all possible if we accept that they are possible.

Right now many of us use our energy and power through our ego mind. We use it for greed, war, ego power, competition and control. When we decide to use our spiritual energy and power for cooperation, abundance, peace, personal empowerment, education and other positive aspects of our Beingness we can and will, I firmly believe, accomplish things we may currently feel are not possible.

Thanks, Willowbei

Re: MIT Skeptic Speaks

Newsweek was lazy and irresponsible in giving Lindzen time in the magazine without getting a non-skeptic scientist to respond and refute the skeptic. In fact, at this point, I think it is reprehensible for a newspaper or magazine to continue to fuel the idea that there still is any debate. 

The scientific debate was over long ago.  Just because a handful of fringe scientists, no longer respected by the regular scientific community, continue to spout nonsense (although as non-scientists it is hard to tell, which is what they rely on), does not mean their ideas should continue to published and thereby give the general public the mistaken idea that there still is a debate within the scientific community.

The legitimate world-wide scientific community, as represented in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sponsored by the United Nations and the World Meterological Association, has given us their studied and researched and peer-reviewed and sourced report (called 4th report, but made up of four reports). The summaries are available online. That report is the current state of scientific research and analysis on the topic.

The real discussions now should be what steps people and businesses and governments should be taking to mitigate climate change and also adapt to it as well (as the temperature will still go up for while until what we do from now on can take its belated effect).

There is a website called PR Watch which “outs” quite a few global skeptics by name or by the organization.  Here are a couple of articles mentioning Mr. Lindzen:

Hot Wager

Seeing Green Through Rose-Colored Glasses