Bizarre talking points of WaPo columnist Krauthammer 18

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Jonas Posted 9:08 am
   31 May 2008

   Mmm, there is a global warming churchNot to credit Krauthammer or to criticize Romm (who's a physicist), but you can't deny that there is a bit of a global warming "church", in the sense that this topic has been pushed to the number one spot of global discourses on development, economics and ecology.
   It can be argued that fitghing climate change should not be the priority of humanity, because there are many far more urgent matters that give us far more value for our buck.
   Some (like Lomborg) go so far as to say that out of a long list of priorities, the climate fight ranks at the very bottom. Bringing energy to people (in the form of food and fuels), nutrition, and fighting diseases like aids and malaria are far, far more urgent. And far, far more efficient as a way to better the biggest number of lives.
   So there should at least be room for a debate about priorities.
   Then perhaps we don't have to deal with people like Krauthammer, and you will even find today's climate skeptics ready to concede that it is a problem that needs our attention, but that needs to be seen in perspective.
   I just feel that by pushing each conversation into the direction of this relatively low priority, is pretty damaging.
   This is not to say climate change isn't important; it's only saying that spending money on mitigating it is probably very inefficient compared with other causes we can use this money for.

   Permalink

2. 

   Wolverine Posted 9:31 am
   31 May 2008

   Hysterical BSCome on Jonas, what planet do you live on?  Show me even one city where addressing climate change is the No. 1 priority.  You can't, because doing this would mean eliminating all unnatural greenhouse gas pollution: no motor vehicles if they run on anything beside solar or wind power, no electricity unless same, etc.  SOME politicians and industry leaders (well, not many of the latter, but a few) SAY that they prioritize fighting climate change, but no one is even coming close to doing it.

   Permalink

3. 

   caniscandida Posted 10:16 am
   31 May 2008

   "they were both religious"After a fashion, Newton was religious, but the fashion was heretical.  He seems to have been a Socinian anti-Trinitarian (i.e. he threw out orthodox belief in God in three persons, satisfying himself with a Unitarian theology); and he may have been an Arian (Jesus Christ is not God, but is rather the highest of God's creatures).  He kept his religious views a carefully guarded secret, for fear of suffering religious persecution.
   Einstein seems to have believed in God -- again, after a fashion -- , but I do not know that he deserves to be called "religious."  A celebrated letter which was just auctioned for a large amount makes fun of some traditional ideas about Judaism:
   http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/984283.html.
   Why Krauthammer thought it was appropriate to assert this, about the alleged religiosity of the two scientists, is not at all clear.
   
   Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

   Permalink

4. 

   msDarby Posted 12:18 pm
   31 May 2008

   SimplicityI don't think I possess the degree required for this thread of comments, nor to add to a brilliantly analyzed essay like this one by Mr. Romm, but DAMN, people...
   Is it really all THAT complicated?
   I guess it is, but I truly still do not get it. No reasonable argument can be made against preserving our life force. In this case, I would propose that the Earth is our (human) life force. Hopefully, we do not need to examine that further for the topics covered here.
   When a species kills off the life force that keeps it alive, it also perishes.
   Plus, Jesus wouldn't ever want it that way. DUH.

   Permalink

5. 

   Russ Posted 6:01 pm
   31 May 2008

   flat earthersIt's long struck me how AGW denial violates Occam's Razor. Here you have facts (carbon emissions and rising concentration), a well-delineated theory which predicts various effects from these facts, and now many years of a track record of those effects occurring on or ahead of schedule.
   So it's evident that this theory is working very well so far, while to supersede it you need to claim:
   
   
   
   In spite of its coherence and eminent plausibility, the theory is just plain wrong. (Also WHY it's wrong. For some reason they're never able to find the flaw.)
   
   That the predicted effects occurring as predicted is just a really amazing coincidence.
   
   That the effects are really being caused by some other factor (which the science is also unaccountably screwing up, since the science says solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols, etc do not cover the observed change).
   
   
   This is certainly an egregious example of "needlessly multiplying entities".
   I also despise this selective acceptance of science based on one's agenda. If we compare three theories - anthro climate change, evolution, and gravitation - which are as close as science comes to "truths", we see how the same persons will reject AGW if it menaces their greed ideology, evolution if it sullies their religion, while none of them reject gravity simply because it doesn't gore any sacred cow. (If it did, we'd certainly have the theory of Intelligent Falling.) Yet these same cretins, if they get sick, will go to the hospital to genuflect before that exact same science which is the result of that exact scientific method they so cavalierly, indeed gleefully, reject where its results are inconvenient. (At least the "christian science" types who reject transfusions etc. are consistent. But I'd ask the rest: if you don't trust science to tell you where hominids came from or what's going to happen at 1000ppm, why would you trust it with your health?)

   Permalink

6. 

   Jonas Posted 12:26 am
   01 Jun 2008

   Wolverine, maybe EuropeWolverine, I should have said that I'm from Europe. Climate change has been the single most important international political issue here, for, what, a decade now?

   Permalink

7. 

   amazingdrx Posted 1:25 am
   01 Jun 2008

   "Just a theory"The old "It's just a theory" talking point?
   The usual response to that was this.  "Yeah, and so is the 'theory' of gravity just a theory, go ahead, please jump off a cliff.  But don't take the whole planet with you."
   So this limboob takes on the theory of gravity? Hehehey.  Amazing.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

8. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 1:45 am
   01 Jun 2008

   Yes, it's science that changes all the time......of course, we all know that religion never changes and has been proven correct in every way throughout history. ^wink^

   Permalink

9. 

   caniscandida Posted 2:40 am
   01 Jun 2008

   change in religionMost religionists will not have a problem acknowledging that there is growth and evolution within their respective traditions.  Sometimes they will even go so far as to say, "We were wrong to believe such-and-such in the past, but now we know better."  One of the greatest events in intellectual history, the Protestant Reformation, was a colossal admission of failure and error on the part of very many Western Europeans, who were originally Roman Catholic.
   Much earlier than that, what I like to call the Euripidean Revolution, in 5th-century-BCE Athens, signaled a profound dissatisfaction with the theology associated with the old Greek mythological traditions.  It resulted in not only great poetry but also remarkable religious and philosophical creativity.
   To be sure, many religionists, who value the concepts of tradition and continuity, insist that they are preserving something essentially unchanging.  But it can happen that even the definition of what is "essentially unchanging" can change.
   
   Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

   Permalink

10. 

    Wolverine Posted 4:19 am
    01 Jun 2008

    European Cities Only Slightly BetterJonas,
    Where in Europe is auto travel prohibited?  In what city is electrical use confined to that with non-greenhouse gas emitting sources?  And the U.K., which has been bragging to the world about taking the lead on this issue, is planning a major expansion of Heathrow Airport, which will contribute to a significant rise in greenhouse gas emissions.
    And as to your original comment about the order of priorities, the human race is flourishing and expanding, regardless of the plight of some individuals, while the natural world is being utterly destroyed by human activities.  Therefore, our priorities should be fixing the natural world, to the extent we can, not obsessing on human problems.

    Permalink

11. 

    Delay And Deny Posted 4:50 am
    01 Jun 2008

    Definition
    
    Newton's "Laws" are really a definition.  It's a projection of an ordered world on a disorderly universe.   This is true of Einstein and all others who want to make us see skyscrapers where there is only mud.
    A simple example is throwing a baseball.   Try and use Newton's Laws to predict where Hernandez pitch will land.   I'll come back in a few centuries when you have the answer.
    Or take Godel, whose incompleteness theorems showed the impossibility of a perfect knowledge system.
    Clearly, Einstein was an apologist for Newtonian thiking.   He wanted to add "just enough" on to the equations to keep us thinking all was right with the world.  
    Catastrophe and unknowingness is scary...but not admitting to them is more dangerous...
    
    
    
    "I'm a scientist; certainty is a big word." -- Anne Heche as Dr. Amy Barnes in Volcano (1997)

    Permalink

12. 

    Tasermons Partner Posted 7:33 am
    01 Jun 2008

    For example...Catastrophe and unknowingness is scary...but not admitting to them is more dangerous...
    Catastrophe such as global warming, for example...^wink^
    
    

    Permalink

13. 

    tico89 Posted 7:55 am
    01 Jun 2008

    It's evolutionMaybe Krauthammer has invented his own theory completely disproving Newton's Laws of Motion and is preparing his ground before unleashing them on the unsuspecting public.
    What people (like Krauthammer) always seem to miss about science is that it doesn't stay static, it evolves. This much more often that actually being disproved. So when scientists talk about uncertainties, they don't mean that next week someone else will come along about invent a new theory; they mean that soon someone else will come along and expand on the theory. Relativity and particle physics came along to expand on Newton. Other theories like superstrings try and reconcile it all.
    The problem is that non-scientists have a tendency to view scientific theories as absolutes. It must state exactly this, and if a new theory states something dissimilar, then the old one must be wrong. Scientists occasionally bark up the wrong branch for a while, but it's extremely unlikely that they're barking up the wrong tree.
    Science adapts to new findings. As we increasingly seem to be seeing around us, it's the humans that are having trouble doing that.
    
    If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

    Permalink

14. 

    Jonas Posted 8:26 am
    01 Jun 2008

    Wolverine, on action and discourseWolverine, again, I am merely referring to the discourse on climate change. It is the top issue in social and political debates over here.
    As you rightly point out, action is something totally different. So my reference to Europe wasn't intended at all as a way to show off, because we don't have much to show off.
    The point merely illustrates what I was trying to say: the climate debate has been reigning politics and social discussions for over 10 years now. This has allowed climate skeptics and vested interests to launch a 'war' against those who call for action on global warming, and who say the world will cease to exist if we don't act now.
    In short, sometimes I feel that if we were to put climate change in a larger perspective on international policies and priorities, this would demine some of the minefields laid out by the climate skeptics. If you relativize the urgency of action on climate change, then you might get more people on board.
    I'm a bit 'Lomborgian' on this. We have to put more emphasis on solving problems that can be tackled with limited means, resulting in huge benefits to humanity. Allowing climate change to dominate the international agenda could be counter-productive and it could even get many ordinary citizens turning away from the issue altogether.

    Permalink

15. 

    Delay And Deny Posted 2:24 pm
    01 Jun 2008

    AGW a Fig Newton
    
    Catastrophe such as global warming, for example...
    No, such as naturogenic global warming.
    Anthropogenic global warming is really just an attempt so say "yeah, I know the globe is warming, but I can quit making it warming any time.   Yeah, all I have to do is stop driving...and the planet will cool...sure, any time".   So ultimately, AGW is not catastrophic, because it claims that we can control the warming.   In that sense, Romm would like it to be like Newton's Laws.   He claims we know the inputs and can control the outputs.
    A more catastrophic situation is NGW.  Not only do we not control the inputs, but we don't know the mechanism producing the outputs and hence cannot regulate them.
     
    
    "I'm a scientist; certainty is a big word." -- Anne Heche as Dr. Amy Barnes in Volcano (1997)

    Permalink

16. 

    caniscandida Posted 6:54 pm
    01 Jun 2008

    "tendency"?Tico89 writes:
    <<
    
    The problem is that non-scientists have a tendency to view scientific theories as absolutes. It must state exactly this, and if a new theory states something dissimilar, then the old one must be wrong.
    
    >>
    Is there indeed a "tendency" among us non-scientists?  I for one certainly do not view scientific theories as "absolutes."
    And it is not even certain that Charles Krauthammer really is like that.  He is a polemicist, and a professional writer; he has to keep producing text, and the text has to amount to an argument on one aggressive side of a debate, so he may feel unscrupulously entitled to use whatever comes to hand as a convenient weapon.
    What seems to be a much more pervasive and anti-civilizational tendency, though, shared apparently by many scientists too, is the subordination of science to technology, the sense that science's principal function is to develop ever newer and better technological advances.
    The famous string-theory physicist here at Columbia, Brian Greene, wrote a much-e-mailed op-ed essay for yesterday's NY Times, on how science education lets down very many students, including science students, by failing to teach that science is more than just the development of technology; it is a unique, profound and endlessly fascinating way of understanding the world and its contents, as much a treasure that should be made available to all as are music, the arts and literature:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01greene.html?e ...
    
    Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

    Permalink

17. 

    amazingdrx Posted 12:37 am
    02 Jun 2008

    Eureka!A moment of clarity.  Why not just stuff the whole planet into a black hole?  Where all the laws of physics are really different.
    The information component of human reality would persist forever, the mean reality of gravity, climate change, national bankruptcy, and so forth would be squashed out of existence.
    Armageddon and the final reunuion with the almighty!  Solving all our eathly problems.
    Now how to generate a black hole?  Which diety should we pray too?
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

18. 

    BlackBear Posted 1:54 am
    02 Jun 2008

    as through a glass, darkly.I think I understand my friend jabailo a bit better now. At first I believed that he was taking the role of Resident Skeptic to new levels of zeal, but this latest thread has revealed a new and interesting datum:
    "Newton's "Laws" are really a definition.  It's a projection of an ordered world on a disorderly universe."
    Far beyond skepticism, this reflects a whole new school of thought. jabailo seems to be saying that since perfect knowledge is impossible, all knowledge is suspect.
    This is a fun philosophy because it allows people to think whatever they want with everyone being equally correct. However, very few people subscribe to it because it can make it difficult to find the coffee pot in the morning.
    I think that it is fair to say that while it has been reasonably well established that 100% certainty might not be possible for an empiricist, that doesn't make the world perfectly unpredictable.
    I am far more inclined to agree that the reason some scientific theories are accepted and others aren't has more to do with politics than with science. If you will recall, even the Copernican view of the solar system (that the sun and not the earth was the center of the solar system) was heresy while the Church had a political stake in astronomy. I would be willing to bet that if the world stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow of its own accord, very few people would argue against global warming, because no one's politics would matter anymore.

    Permalink