The Insurance Tech Guru

I am not really a 'tree hugger," but I do try to conserve where I can. Al Gore's presentation implies man is stronger than Mother Nature, ergo God. Seems a little arrogant to me. Certainly there are individual situations where man has not performed well, e.g. pollution of a river, etc., but on a global scale I think this group is "out there" some where.

Good grief. This post has many problems. First, forget about Al Gore. He's a bogey man for the skeptics. Global warming is the majority worldwide scientific consensus, under multiple perspectives. It's not appropriate to attack the messengers, it's time to address the science. To this point, citing NewsMax--a highly partisan right-wing cite--is not credible. Dismiss Gore if you want, just focus on the overwhelming scientific consensus supporting human contributions to global warming.

Now we get to Gray's critique. I've heard Gray speak and write, and he's generally been pretty careful. He denies that global warming is a significant factor in HURRICANES, his area of expertise. This may well be true, as the decadal theory of hurricane frequency has been around for a long time. But your article has much stronger, generic global-warming denials attributed to him. So a question: are you certain he's denying global warming in total, or just its contributions to hurricanes? If the latter, your article is very misleading. If the former, then Gray is in the vast minority of scientific consensus, which puts the onus on him to prove his point scientifically. Mostly, you quote unscientific skeptical comments, which are no better coming from him than from anyone else.

This last point is important. I realize that Americans in particular have a big problem with "elites," however that's defined. But if you have any respect for the scientific method at all, you have to accept that not all statements constitute scientific proof. In science, I frankly don't care about people's opinions, I care about science. This often makes for poor journalism in the sense of generating excitement, but that's just too bad. Journalists need to exercise self-restraint and stick to the science, boring as that may be. So your call for reader's opinions is very inclusive, but it's lousy science and not important to the issue at hand.

The great thing about science, which the skeptics routinely deny, is that science will change on a dime if a good contrary study comes to light. Far from suppressing studies like that, scientists are notoriously competitive and would race to publish such a paradigm-shifting study.

Like I said, lots of potential problems with this post that you should consider addressing.

Todd R. Bault, FCAS

Todd brings up many good points to which I will briefly respond.
1. While I would certainly like to forget about Al Gore in this context, the undeniable fact is that he is the poster child for global warming alarmists. As such, his motives, motivation and veracity are fair game.
2. We didn't cite an opinion from NewsMax, we cited a quote which, by the way, is absolutely in line with what Dr. Gray told me personally. NewsMax is indeed right-leaning politically, but is no less a valid source than the left-leaning New York Times. The mere fact that politics has been brought into this discussion tells me that this issue goes far beyond the pure science Todd espouses.
3. Yes, I am certain that Dr. Gray is skeptical on global warming. He allows, however, that even if temperatures do increase over the next 100 years, it will NOT be the doing of mankind.
4. As to quoting scientists, I wonder what else a journalist would do when looking for information on science. I suppose I could get another advanced degree in climatology, but somehow that seems impractical. Journalists are not experts on everything they write about, so they seek out the true experts in order to get the knowledge they seek. Scientists apply the scientific method; journalists publish the results of those applications--as reported by the scientists.
5. We're seeking the opinions of our readers, because, as pointed out earlier, global warming is both a scientific and a political issue. And, while many scientists embrace some notion of temperature change, there is broad disagreement over how much--if at all--that change would be brought about by the efforts of makind. I'll have more to say on this (believe it or not) once we hear more from our readers.

Whatever you personally decide about global warming, the truth is that humans have made a mess of their stewardship of the planet. We, the industrialized and industrializing countries, use it and throw it away. We leave behind slag, detritus that won't be fit for human use for thousands of years, and polluted lakes and streams.

Whether or not humans are the cause of global warming or it is a natural function of the planet, we should be smart enough and care enough for our children and their children, that we clean up after ourselves or don't make a mess to start with.

It's wonderful that the planet can regenerate, but why should the next 10 generations of our descendants have to wade through it when we could leave them a healthy environment instead.

Whether it is Nature or human nature, let's do our part to keep it beautiful - for them and for us.

Thanks for the reply. I still take issue with some of this. You can disagree, but it goes to a rather important point that is getting lost in a lot of American discourse.

>>>1. You imply that what Gore says is more important than what is the scientific consensus. If Gore didn't exist, human-generated global warming WOULD STILL BE the scientific consensus. What Gore says is only important for writing something people might want to read and debate. It is NOT important from the prospect of actual knowledge, except where what he says is a reflection or refution of the scientific consensus. So your "alarmist" comment is telling--you are saying that the VAST MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS WORLDWIDE are "alarmists." I'm sorry, but that's irresponsible, in my view.

>>>2. Opinions are not about what we know. Science is as close as humans can get to figuring out what we actually know (and yes, even science isn't perfect, it's just the best technique we have for approximating reality).

>>>3. Then my view of [Dr. Gray] has significantly degraded. The scientific consensus on global warming isn't minor. Frankly, this puts Gray in the "wacky" fringe now, which puts the onus on him to publish peer-reviewed rebuttals.

>>>4. [Journalists should] cite the scientific consensus, not individuals, and certainly not their unscientific opinions. I realize this is less compelling that citing individuals, but this is a case wher the normal journalistic paradigm gets in the way of actually communicating something useful. Cite opinions ONLY in the context of what is going to be done. The fact that what we are likely to do could differ from what we know is a big news story in its own right!

4. Frankly, I think you may be wrong about this. Given changes in communications and access to knowledge, generalist journalists may provide less and less value over time. I think having a specialist background in the beat you cover is going to be more essential to providing useful journalist insights. This is why specialist blogs (like this one, ironically!) are gaining in popularity.

>>>5. Fine, but journalists should stop equating scientific findings as equally worthy in a knowledge sense to unscientific opinions. Like I said, opinions describe what we are likely to DO, but not what we KNOW. Not all questions are scientific, of course. But for those that are, science has to be given primacy, which grates against Americans' anti-"elitist" tendencies. If we (in the collective sense) can't agree on this point, that is tantamont to saying there isn't even an approximation to objective truth, only opinions. I can never agree to that, which ends the conversation for me, I guess.

Todd R. Bault, FCAS

I agree that we need to be good stewards of the planet, and we largely have not been. We need to do better in this area.

However, I believe the impact that humans have had on global warming is negligible, if it exists at all. The BBC, a decidedly left-leaning organization, has produced a really good documentary that explains the political and scientific (not so much) origins of the global warming theory. They did a good job of scientifically showing that CO2 emissions actually trail global warming instead of causing it.

One comment that was made by an individual in this documentary is quite telling. He stated that as long as there is a crisis, governments will dump a bunch of money into their research. Therefore, if there is no crisis, the money goes away. Scientists want their research funded, so they are going to continue to play chicken little.

That said, even though we don't cause global warming, we still should try to reduce the pollution in all phases of our environment, not due to alarmism, but because it is the right thing to do.

Great stuff from Todd, but I won't be taking my third M.S. in climatology any time soon, so hopefully you all will be OK with this generalist continuing on.

Interesting that Todd recommends that I only publish the "scientific consensus," rather than the statements of a respected scientist who goes against that consensus. I guess anyone who doesn't agree with them is just a crackpot. It might be useful to remember, however, that at one time, the scientific consensus was that the world was flat. It might also be good to remember that the consensus has a way of changing over time.

Many thanks to Todd for these interesting and provocative remarks. I will have more to say on this topic soon.

I think everyone is missing the real issue here. Global warming believers say humans are the cause of climate change. Skeptics say that nature is the cause of climate change. Well, if we all agree that the climate is changing why aren't we focusing on damage control? Why don't we take some of the billions of dollars that we're spending to fight global warming and spend it to strengthen construction on the coastlines and prepare for all the other disasters that are supposed to happen as a result of climate change? We're all going to look really foolish one day when we finally reduce human CO2 emissions down to zero and then the climate changes anyway.

I'm glad you made this point:

>>>It might be useful to remember, however, that at one time, the scientific consensus was that the world was flat. It might also be good to remember that the consensus has a way of changing over time.

Exactly! That's why I respect science--because it is essentially a formalized SKEPTICAL procedure. Falsification is the ONLY thing we know for certain in science, so paradigm change is part of the process. But the example you cite was PART of the scientific method. If someone just said, "I think the earth is round because that's what I think" way back when, there would be NO reason to listen to them, even though they happened to be right. Science is about eliminating chance and looking for causation if it exists. Scientists aren't trying to be right for the wrong reasons, not good ones anyway.

This is a huge problem in our discourse today. The top priority is to "win" arguments, not to be right. We no longer care how we win, increasingly including cheating as routine. We don't respect knowledge, or the process of gathering knowledge, unless it leads to results we like. It's a big problem, and one reason why so much of our public policy seems so screwed up. But given our cult of individuality in this country, it's not likely to change.

Todd Bault, FCAS

I would rarely comment on a fellow NU blogger's post, being that I have my own soap box at www.property-casualty.com, but having gone through a similarly heated debate (pun intended) on my own blog not too long ago, I thought I would throw in my two cents.

I think we're all missing the point by fixating on whether or not global warming is either an absolute fact that is of such monumental importance that we must turn the way we live our lives upside down overnight or risk extinction, or that global warming is song cockamamie liberal hoax--much like those ridiculous theories of evolution and gravity--and that we should just go on our merry way pumping out greenhouse gas until we're baking like Thanksgiving turkeys!

(My own personal opinion, by the way, is that if global warming means New York will be like San Diego in a few years, I'm all for it!)

I think a middle ground is more sensible from a true risk management perspective. There is no need to waste time in politically-tainted debates over who is "right" or "wrong" here.

The fact is that if the vast majority of scientists are correct, and global warming is man-made and a cosmic threat to our survival, we can't afford to ignore the challenge if those who scoff at the notion are proven wrong.

However, I'm not saying we should react to shadow threats "just in case." It also would make sense to take steps to lower greenhouse gas emissions because it makes sense from an economic, political and environmental perspective.

Economically, we need to ween ourselves off of oil in general. Politically, we need to lower our imports of foreign oil, in particular, to stop feeding crazy regimes like Iran and Venezuela.

Economically, we could also enjoy quite an economic boom by taking the lead on "green" technologies. I am with my namesake (but no relation) Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist and author of "The World Is Flat,"
who suggests the White House (but not this oil-friendly one) challenge America to cut oil consumption by 50 percent in 10 years--similar to the inspirational challenge issued by President Kennedy to put a man on the moon within the decade.

With oil bound to run low as time goes on, and grow more expensive, new manufacturing giants such as China and India could buy our new technology to ease their own energy supply problems, while cutting global warming at the same time.

Of course, last but not least, we would benefit environmentally from cutting oil consumption.

Just one personal political point that always sticks in my craw: To characterize Al Gore's "failed" presidential bid may be technically true but truly inaccurate. After all, the guy did get the most votes (funny how we lecture other countries about democracy, then hand elections to people with fewer votes), and "lost" the election thanks to a scandalous, politically-skewed vote-counting scam in Florida, backed by the Supreme Court on a party-line vote.

Not that I am bitter, mind you....

Is there truly a scientific consensus about the fact of global warming? Perhaps yes, but that is only the effect. I have seen little hard evidence that there is an unbroken connection between that effect and the cause being human, natural, or some other as yet undiscovered cause. I believe that is what Gray allows for in his skepticism. I don't see that allowance being made by the so called fanatics who hide behind effect driven science.

I would also suggest that the impact of remedies being put forth cannot be known without establishing that causality. However, once remedies are unleashed, time has proven that unintended consequences can be far worse than what is being remediated.

The U.S. is far less of a polluter than in the 50's and 60's. It may be an environmental cycle that is self correcting based on the tolerance of a culture to diminish or build overall quality of life.

Finally, Kyoto and other agreements are shell games that will not hold all nations/economies accountable in the same effective ways. When we figure out how to successfully achieve human engineering on a global scale, we will solve greater problems than global warming: hunger, violence, human rights deprivation, and peace.

Just to weigh in, Algore IS all wet and I'm not convinced that "global warming" is real or is caused by man if so. Anyone old enough to remember the "global cooling" in the 70s that was supposed to have us in an ice age by now?

To be short and to the point.

Dear Mr. Gore, the climate is always changing from hot to cold, cold to hot.

I've read enough articles about the CO2 issue and nobody can explain increases of CO2 that took place hundreds of years ago.

Consensus isn't sceince.

It is fascinating to watch the Climate
Change debate. One side relies on "consensus" of "scientists." But looking at the consensus, the word "scientist" is used in an overbroad sense. Most of the consensus is of scientists without any training in global climate change. And, by the way, when was anything scientific ever done by "consensus"? The "scientific method" does not include or involve "consensus."

Please sell your beach house now as I am in the process of buying one.

James Bliss says, "Consensus isn't sceince...One side relies on "consensus" of "scientists." But looking at the consensus, the word "scientist" is used in an overbroad sense. Most of the consensus is of scientists without any training in global climate change. And, by the way, when was anything scientific ever done by "consensus"? The "scientific method" does not include or involve "consensus." "

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The scientific method involves the most important kind of consensus: repeatability. The fact that the main report used as support for global warming today is, in essence, a giant literature search of the peer-reviewed research, how can you say any of this?

I'm sorry, but virtually all of the criticism I read boils down to "I don't like the consequences of this result, and I won't pay for it." Fine--just say that. That has NOTHING to do with whether or not this is the best scientific answer we currently have. At least be intellectually honest.