Jun 3, 2008
NY REVIEW OF BOOKS Re-opens Global Warming Debate
The latest issue of THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS (June 12, 2008) has a surprising review by Freeman Dyson of two books about global warming. The first book is William Nordhaus, A QUESTION OF BALANCE: WEIGHING THE OPTIONS ON GLOBAL WARMING POLICIES. Nordhaus is an economist who, as the review states,"is not concerned with the science of global warming." Instead he"assumes that the science and the damage are specified, and he compares the effectiveness of various policies" on a strictly cost-benefit basis. Dyson is impressed with Nordhaus's conclusion that the Stern and Gore proposals are"disastrously expensive," that Kyoto without the U.S. is a useless wash, that Kyoto with the U.S. has marginal benefits, and that the optimal carbon tax, enforced globally, would be three times as beneficial. But none of these policies compare with the benefits of what Nordhaus calls the"low-cost backstop" relying on the development of new technologies.
But truly exceptional is Dyson's assessment of the second book he reviews: GLOBAL WARMING: LOOKING BEYOND KYOTO, edited by Ernesto Zedillo, head of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. At the heart of the book is a debate about the effects of global warming between Stefan Rahmstorf, a German professor of physics of the oceans representing the mainstream, and Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT, who"does not deny the existence of global warming, but considers the predictions of its harmful effects to be grossly exaggerated." Here is Dyson's assessment of the debate:
"These two chapters give the reader a sad picture of climate science. . . . Their conversation is a dialogue of the deaf. The majority responds to the minority with open contempt. In the history of science it has often happened that majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right. It may--or may not-- be that the present is such a time. The great virtue of Nordhaus's economic analysis is that it remains valid whether the majority view is right or wrong."
Dyson goes on to add that"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 scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth. . . . 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."
Dyson himself believes that"the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound." Yet he admits that"unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet." However, many of the global-warming skeptics themselves"are passionate environmentalists. . . . Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard."
This is noteworthy both for Dyson's intellectual honesty and for the fact that his review appeared in such a prestigious and widely read establishment publication. I cannot wait to see the firestorm of letters the review generates in future issues of THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS.
But truly exceptional is Dyson's assessment of the second book he reviews: GLOBAL WARMING: LOOKING BEYOND KYOTO, edited by Ernesto Zedillo, head of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. At the heart of the book is a debate about the effects of global warming between Stefan Rahmstorf, a German professor of physics of the oceans representing the mainstream, and Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT, who"does not deny the existence of global warming, but considers the predictions of its harmful effects to be grossly exaggerated." Here is Dyson's assessment of the debate:
"These two chapters give the reader a sad picture of climate science. . . . Their conversation is a dialogue of the deaf. The majority responds to the minority with open contempt. In the history of science it has often happened that majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right. It may--or may not-- be that the present is such a time. The great virtue of Nordhaus's economic analysis is that it remains valid whether the majority view is right or wrong."
Dyson goes on to add that"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 scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth. . . . 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."
Dyson himself believes that"the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound." Yet he admits that"unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet." However, many of the global-warming skeptics themselves"are passionate environmentalists. . . . Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard."
This is noteworthy both for Dyson's intellectual honesty and for the fact that his review appeared in such a prestigious and widely read establishment publication. I cannot wait to see the firestorm of letters the review generates in future issues of THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS.