The Hotchkiss Bookman: Early Winter and Reading Climate Science Deniers

The Hotchkiss Bookman:  Early Winter and Reading Climate Science Deniers

By Tom Wills – proprietor of Wills Gallery and Used Books, 229 West Bridge St.  Hotchkiss. Open 10:30 to 5:30 Monday – Saturday.  (970) 872-2664

This past month was a little more hectic than usual with a LOT of books being delivered from trade customers including about 30 boxes just from one family that was moving and had decided to not move all of those books one more time. Another 20 boxes came in from others a few at a time.

After twenty five years in the used book business I still get a Christmas morning thrill out of digging through new arrivals, looking for treasures and especially things I or Jane would like to read.  Highlights:  a near complete set of Jaqueline Winspear’s Masey Dobbs historical mysteries, a good selection of beat poets and a boxed set of the basic works of Henry David Thoreau.

A heads up to people who want to stock up before the heavy snows hit; each second Saturday of the month is Shop Hotchkiss Saturday and my main sale feature for the day is 50% off on all fiction in the store. This includes everything from antique books to paperbacks.  Anything that is fiction.

What I’m reading: 

It’s been a struggle this past month to find the time to read so I haven’t had the time for much fiction but I have been reading a lot of science books.  Some very good and some not so much. A friend who is in the coal business  gave me a copy of a book that apparently is aimed at stoking the confirmation biases of those in the energy industry and those of us who want to turn up the thermostat and not feel guilty. A human-caused climate change “denier” book that is more philosophic /ideologic than scientific. The book is such a despicable, selfish, ideological (Ayn Rand influence) slog it was a temptation to just skim it and dismiss it as agenda driven crap. But, for some reason I kept coming back and reading it carefully and even rereading much of it and researching some of the more outlandish claims and admitting that there were some good points buried among all the climate science denialism. Not many, but some. Like we are very, very, very, VERY dependent on fossil fuels and the transition so far has been largely symbolic.

Book Review: The (A-) Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

By Thomas Wills

Alex Epstein’s 2014 book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels (Penguin/Portfolio – a business book imprint) lays out its argument on the first couple of pages.  The argument: The use of fossil fuels has made life better for the greater percentage of humanity and has the potential for improving life for the rest of the developing world.   Thus the positives from the continued, and even increased use of fossil fuels, outweigh the negatives. And if problems crop up we can invent new technology to get past them.  Of course the first part is true but the last part requires a leap of logic and a rejection of scientific consensus.  Or by adding a qualifier like, “If we can come up with workable carbon capture and storage technology. “ But Epstein, a libertarian and an uber Ayn Rand fan, who only has philosophy and business degrees, attempts unsuccessfully to fill the logic gap with a very fact-challenged posit that amounts to:  “if we reject the general consensus conclusions of most climate scientists and the periodic IPCC reports for policy makers.”

As for the technology will save us bit, it certainly might, but it is an odd argument when Epstein denies the basic scientific method (in specific areas like modeling) when applied in climate science on one hand and then claims that science in the form of better equipment will rescue us.

Epstein is a climate denier (or selective ignorer), but a clever one of the Bjorn Lomborg type (Danish statistician), in that he states that he accepts the mechanism by which greenhouse gasses (GHG) absorb infrared radiation and warms the planet and that humans are increasing the amounts of GHG (he does get the details wrong) but rejects the parts the science that extrapolate serious impacts out into the future based on what has happened in past climate when CO2 concentrations reached certain amounts (paleoclimatology). Epstein claims falsely that the science is all about immediate “catastrophic” impacts. It’s not.  Epstein refers to the very robust, super sophisticated climate modeling and the observational data and basic physics behind them as “only speculation.” Then he gets even more factually challenged.

Epstein says that he always starts the debate on whether we should move away from fossil fuels by asking, “Is our goal to maximize human well-being?”  Aside from Earth Firsters, most people would probably agree that that is a core goal with some qualifications like the importance of a healthy environment that benefits us all.   Then he argues that “maximizing” requires increasing use of fossil fuels and we can “climate proof “our civilization with better air conditioning, etc.  He says we have already done this to some extent like adopting building codes, and restricting development on flood plains or the like.  So, he is saying to skip the mitigation phase and move right to adaption; after all we can build seawalls faster with cheaply fossil-fueled equipment.  All while adding additional new GHG to the system. He is also very First-World-focused, citing a statistic that in the US we have “had no drought related deaths in 10 years.”  (We have had lots of climate/weather related deaths such as from excessive heat.) About a billion people live in the fully air conditioned, highly mobile First World, while 6 billion live in developing countries where heat waves, droughts, famines (from droughts) and storm events may kill thousands and eventually  possibly even millions.

Epstein points out that that general life expectancy has risen dramatically during the industrial era and credits some of this to cheap energy, which is a fair claim for the developed world. Of course a greater portion of improvement is due to growing scientific knowledge, which he casts doubt on the validity of when it comes to climate.  He also appears to claim, while offering no statistical evidence,  that fossil fuel use has created every other  good statistic, like a steady decline in the number of climate (weather event) related deaths.  Cheap energy may have contributed to improvements indirectly, but so did better medical practices, zoning and building codes, etc.  The book (and Epstein’s speeches that I reviewed) is full of very broad, irrelevant claims like this.  Cheap energy has also made much more deadly wars possible along with pollution that has killed millions and led to a rise in new and existing diseases like cancer.

And despite the title, Epstein also points to nuclear power as very safe, reliable energy source that has been suppressed due to irrational fears when the sun itself is essentially a nuclear furnace. He also criticizes reluctance to build new hydropower projects. These points would seem somewhat thoughtful and fair if Epstein has not meant them as simply kicks against the sometimes more emotional than rational environmental community, and then wandered off into Climate Change Denial-land.  His foundational argument in this area is there hasn’t been much climate change or impacts so far, and despite all of the science, observations of trends, and improvements in modelling, any attempt to extrapolate what will happen in the future is mere “speculation.” That word again. So we should just reject the science and keep on doing what we are doing and more of it.

As the book proceeds Epstein goes from Lomborg style adaption costs versus mitigation costs arguments and settles down to other fairly standard climate denier talking points like “there is no 97 percent (climate science)scientific consensus” calling it a “deliberate misrepresentation.”   It isn’t, since the consensus is based on not “belief” but on accumulated data and evidence of in the published peer reviewed literature.  Epstein refers only specifically to one well reviewed study of the literature done with coordination by respected climatologist John Cook of Australia.  Cook’s study successfully passed peer review and subsequent reexaminations of the methodology used.  There have been several more studies of peer reviewed literature in the field that have reached the same general conclusion while using a variety of methodology.  The simple fact is that the basics of human caused climate change are not challenged by any working mainstream climate scientist. (Epstein cites only fringe deniers)  They are also supported by every respected scientific organization in the world along with the IPCC and most of the world’s governments. It turns out the Epstein is also a conspiracy theorist as are most deniers when then come up against the wall of established science.

Interestingly, as stated previously, Epstein does accept some of the basic science, while denying other parts and wholly misrepresenting still others, but also claims that climate scientists are all in cahoots to exaggerate the dangers of climate change.

To bolster his anti- 97% claim Epstein lists four scientists that complained about how their published papers were treated in the Cook study.  All of those listed are known, uniformly discredited deniers and many are not climate scientists.  For example Richard Tol is an economist with degrees in that field only, but who has written papers on the “economics” of climate. Craig Idso has degrees in geology and agronomy and is a paid consultant to the denier, industry funded Heartland Institute. He is big on how higher concentrations of CO2 help some plants grow larger or mature faster (which is true) from which he makes a leap to: “so excess CO2 is good.” NIr Shiaviv is a fringe scientist who thinks cosmic rays have to do with climate change and ice ages (they don’t) and has appeared in denier documentaries.

According to John Cook, none of the four scientists’ papers were counted in the 97% number despite their claims and he has repeatedly explained the careful methodology many times as result of false claims such as Epstein’s.  https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

NASA view and list of scientific organizations in agreement http://www.climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Epstein opinion piece on Forbes website, basically from his book: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

A response from the same source:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/fayeflam/2015/01/09/four-reasons-to-worry-about-anthropogenic-global-warming-independent-of-what-97-of-scientists-believe/

Epstein’s book at the end of the day is a cleverly parsed, very long opinion piece, whose aim is to further mislead the public and act in advocacy for the fossil fuel industry, and apparently to drum up business for his consulting firm, to delay eventual regulation beyond what has happened administratively by the EPA. I suspect that Mr. Epstein makes his arguments while knowing better and hoping to further his current work as a paid public relations consultant for the industry.  Thus, I would have to say that Epstein, like many not-really-ignorant, professional deniers is, from a Christian (or humanist) perspective, immoral in that he bears false witness for monetary gain on a subject where the wrong policy being adopted will result in many lives lost, particularly in the third world where the majority of the world’s most vulnerable population reside.

Epstein does make a convincing case that fossil fuel are so embedded into our society and economy that a transition away from them is going to be nearly impossible within a short time frame of two or three decades, even if there were no political obstacles.  And Epstein’s book does give the reader an excuse to check claims made therein and learn better. And to decide if they really give a damn if people in the third world die due to our inaction.  Epstein, coming from an Ayn Rand “Virtue of Selfishness” point of view, obviously doesn’t.  His book could easily be subtitled “Why the Fossil Fuel Industry Should Hire Me to do Their Public Relations Campaigns.”

I look forward to reading a truly serious book from a conservative or libertarian about having a real public and political debate begin, starting from the accepted science and moving to the most practical course of actions (from that point of view) that should be taken to address the future dangers from climate change. So far books by greedy, unethical deniers/delayers like Epstein are only attempting to push back meaningful governmental action, something that is both cynical and immoral and may ultimately only add to the public’s growing cynicism about the industry.

Fire and Ice: The Greenhouse Effect, Ozone Depletion and Nuclear Winter – David E. Fisher -1990 – Harper and Row

I picked up this older science book out of a box of things of similar vintage that came into the bookstore and was surprised at how much climate science was pretty clear 25 years ago. It even contains solid information on the very real possibility of Artic tipping points that would release massive amounts of methane from thawing permafrost. And a very good explanation of why methane concentrations have risen even faster than CO2 (deforestation and agriculture). Fisher a nuclear physicist, and very lucid popular science for laymen writer, does an excellent and entertaining job of explaining the three largest scenarios for us to destroy ourselves at the time.  This includes a detailed history of the successful effort to ban CFCs (propellants and refrigerants) that were destroying atmospheric ozone, which keeps most of us from getting skin cancer constantly.

As far as the climate change/warming  science goes we apparently knew  we were in trouble many decades ago and two and a half decades of further research have only confirmed what we already knew and  removed almost all doubt about the timeline.  And still we dawdle.  While we have solid science showing the future danger from excess greenhouse gasses from fossil fuel combustion a good portion of politicians and the populace chooses to look the other way or are falsely comforted by books such as Mr. Epstein’s.