This is a perfect example of the fake-balance that’s omnipresent in today’s media.  It doesn’t seem to matter if only one side of an argument is sound.  Both sides are presented as if equally valid. 

As is usually the case, the climate change denier (which is really what Levi is, acknowledging its existence, but dismissing it as not particularly urgent) is not a climate scientist.  It’s absurd that non climate scientists are given equal time in this debate.  Do we ask dentists about heart disease?

Levi has published a token couple of papers on environmental science, but spends most of his time elsewhere (e.g. consulting on the technical accuracy of the TV show ‘24’).  We frequently hear from these skeptics (e.g. physicist Freeman Dyson), or hobbyist scientists like Levi, that they’re just not sure they trust the climate science consensus.  Well, it helps to work at it full time!

And, the Council on Foreign Relations?  Thanks.  You guys steered us so adeptly into the Iran Hostage Crisis, and Iraq War.  I think we might leave environmental policy to the experts.

Levi twice mentioned carbon capture and sequestration seriously.  That immediately identifies you as a quack on this issue.  Industrial CCS is absolutely nowhere yet.  Compared to solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass, which frequently are ridiculed as not ready for prime time, CCS is in its infancy, and may never prove practical.

He then was touted by Mooney as knowledgeable in economics as well as environmental policy, but not once did he even mention externalities.  Sorry, but when you consider the external costs of fossil fuels (e.g. cost of pollution not assigned to the producers, and the cost of Middle East wars to preserve global access to oil), solar, wind, and geothermal are already on par, or cheaper than gasoline and petro-diesel.  Only a simpleton who only looks at gas pump prices doesn’t understand the externality issue.  A serious policy analyst should.

He spin doctored the statement that the US was decreasing oil consumption.  Anyone in environmental policy and economics should know that the drop in US oil consumption has been a result of the economic downturn, not any greening of our system.  It’s also convenient that tar sands oil, which now represents more than a million “barrels” a day of consumption, is classified with bitumen, not crude oil.  When you add crude oil consumption to tar sands oil, the combined consumption has only dropped by a token amount, easily explained entirely by the economic slowdown.  As the economy has leveled off, so has the decrease in oil consumption.

Levi implied that increasing tar sands supply would have little effect on both oil prices, and overall greenhouse gas emissions.  Has he ever observed the oil market before?  Prices fluctuate wildly, with even minor changes to supply (or demand), and even do so when there are simply fears of supply changes.  Again, indication that his economic literacy is appallingly low.

He tries to make the argument that natural gas is simply a substitute for coal, and therefore good for climate change.  If that was truly a 1:1 substitute, I’d agree with him.  But, I’ve had this same argument with friends of mine in Big Auto, who claim that their work to improve SUV fuel economy is actually more important for climate change than making additional improvements in compact/midsize fuel economy.  That argument totally neglects the fact that when SUVs are made more cost-effective to operate, more people will drive them, negating any benefit of making them more efficient.  This can be seen in the increase in curb weight of the average US passenger vehicle of about 1000 lbs in just a generation.  Cheap natural gas will likely have the same effect.  Just another excuse to put off developing renewables.

Nuclear.  No discussion of the very important fact that although not CO2-emitting, nuclear has the enormous problem that it’s a finite energy source, too.  If we used nuclear power like France does (most of their electricity is nuclear), the world would actually run out of nuclear fuel even faster than we’ll run out of oil.  Nuclear is a silly technology to consider at this point, in any capacity other than simply keeping alive existing nuclear facilities until planned end-of-life, and then retiring.

Risk analysis.  Levi basically said, “well, maybe 350 ppm isn’t the right number”.  Of course it could be off.  But, he only considered whether it might be 400 or 450 ppm.  He made zero acknowledgement of the fact that it’s entirely possible that 350 ppm isn’t aggressive enough, and the secondary effects of climate change (loss of albedo from sea ice, release of sequestered methane, etc.) may provide more warming than currently estimated. No serious risk analysis takes the current consensus, and only considers the possibility that the estimate might err on one side.  But, that’s what Levi’s done.

This is the problem I have with centrists in general.  They really don’t know what they’re talking about, but have found that they can maintain the appearance of being reasonable if they simply pick a position that’s in between extremes.  Very little human progress, and actual discovery, has been made by people who simply pick a position in the middle of mankind’s current spectrum of ignorance.

Agnostics don’t have it right simply because they’re in between atheists and believers.  To not recognize the impossibility of an invisible, jealous space god isn’t wise.  Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell wasn’t a decent policy, just because it went half way to protecting civil rights.  Obama ending the Afghan war by 2015 isn’t good foreign policy because the GOP wants us there forever.  And people who claim that climate change isn’t an urgent problem don’t have the intellectual high ground.

I’m a major fan of Richard Carrier, and have read a number of his writtings on infidels.org, to which he’s a major contributor.  He seems, at least in my mind, to be one of the strongest atheist philosophers of modern times, and his style never ceases to amaze me.

I can only hope that they choose to bring him on someday.

Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Richard Dawkins, considered one of the worldâs most influential scientists, is the first holder of the Charles Simonyi professorship of the public understanding of science at Oxford University and the recipient of a number of awards for his writings and for his science, including the International Cosmos Prize, the Kistler Prize, and the Shakespeare Prize. He is the author of a number of critically acclaimed books, such as The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, Unweaving the Rainbow, The Devilâs Chaplain, and The Ancestorâs Tale. His most recent title is the best selling The God Delusion which is now out in paperback. In this candid discussion with D.J. Grothe recorded in front of a live audience at the recent Secular Society and Its Enemies conference, Richard Dawkins discusses the impact of his book The God Delusion, whether or not his uncompromising attack on religion undermines science education, and how people can find meaning in a godless universe. He also explores strategies for advancing atheism in society and highlights what secularist can learn from the gay rights and feminist movements. Additionally, during the audience question and answer period, professor Dawkins fields a question from the eminent ethicist Peter Singer.

What a pleasure to get some new insights from Dawkins. I’m currently listening to the God Delusion on tape (well , mp3) while walking my St Bernard Having read the book some time ago it’s fun to hear it in his own (and his wife’s) voice.

Host: Chris Mooney

We had Lawrence Krauss on Point of Inquiry less than a year ago, to discuss his recent book on the scientific works of Richard Feynman.

But Krauss is kind of a machine, and in order to keep up with him, we had to have him on again. Already.

You see, Krauss has a new book out that’s causing quite a stir right now—A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing.

Here’s a hint as to why: Krauss’s answer to this age-old question isn’t God. In fact, as discussed on the program, Krauss has arguably written the book that “kicks God out of physics.”

And along the way, he also manages to explain a heck of a lot of science.

Lawrence Krauss is an the internationally known theoretical physicist and popular author. He has published hundreds of scientific papers, as well as acclaimed books like the bestselling The Physics of Star Trek and Fear of Physics. He’s director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/lawrence_krauss_a_universe_from_nothing/

Host: Chris Mooney

Why is it that some of us are religious, some of us not… some of us liberal, some of us not?

If you’ve been paying attention, then by now you might have noticed that this doesn’t really have a lot to do with the intellectual validity of religious, or irreligious, or liberal, or conservative ideas.

So what causes it? And why can’t we all get along?

To get at this, Point of Inquiry invited on a scholar and thinker who has become famous for his scientific approach to this question—Jonathan Haidt, author of the new book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.

Jonathan Haidt is a professor of social psychology at the University of Virginia, and a visiting professor of business ethics at the NYU-Stern School of Business. Haidt’s research examines the intuitive foundations of morality, and how morality varies across cultures. He is the author of The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom, and he and his collaborators conduct research at the website YourMorals.org.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/jonathan_haidt_the_righteous_mind/

Host: Chris Mooney

Over the last decade, there have been many calls in the secular community for increased criticism of religion, and increased activism to help loosen its grip on the public.

But what if the human brain itself is aligned against that endeavor?

That’s the argument made by cognitive scientist Robert McCauley in his new book, Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not.

In it, he lays out a cognitive theory about why our minds, from a very early state of development, seem predisposed toward religious belief—and not predisposed towards the difficult explanations and understandings that science offers.

If McCauley is right, spreading secularism and critical thinking may always be a difficult battle—although one no less worthy of undertaking.

Dr. McCauley is University Professor and Director of the Center for Mind, Brain, and Culture at Emory University. He is also the author of Rethinking Religion and Bringing Ritual to Mind.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/robert_mccauley_why_religion_is_natural_and_science_is_not/

I can imagine plenty of reasons why this TruthMarket endeavor might fail, including potential users’ apathy, suboptimal website design (not that I could do better, but that’s not my area of expertise), and inadequate effort to publicize the website (http://www.truthmarket.com) or particular “campaigns” on it.  That said, my initial reaction is that this could be a good (great?) way for capable skeptics to profit from their rational, empirical approach while accumulating a public record of their positions’ merit.

To illustrate my current understanding of the website and elicit corrective feedback, here’s an example based on a hypothetical CAM remedy:

0. Suppose that promoters of this CAM remedy have asserted that it has some demonstrable health benefit, or that they at least strongly suggest such a benefit.

1. I decide to make some money and make a point by publicly exposing these promoters’ assertion as a bogus statement (BS), in TruthMarket parlance.

2. I create a TruthMarket campaign that consists mainly of my claim that the CAM promoters’ assertion is BS, specific criteria for challenging my claim, a bounty amount for a successful challenger (e.g., $5000), and evidence to bolster my claim; creating this campaign costs me $75.

3. Other interested parties sponsor my claim by making contributions of varying amounts; if they contribute enough to reach the bounty amount before the campaign’s deadline, the campaign goes “live”; otherwise, all sponsors’ contributions are refunded to them.

4. If my campaign goes live, anyone can challenge my claim by paying a small fraction of the bounty amount and submitting their evidence (e.g., substantiating the CAM promoters’ assertion with credible evidence), which is presumably reviewed by TruthMarket personnel—how this works isn’t clear; if the challenge is successful, the challenger receives the bounty, in which case I lose $75 and the sponsors lose their contributions.

5. If no one successfully challenges my campaign’s claim within the allotted time, then I get 20% of the bounty (e.g., $1000 of a $5000 bounty) and the remaining 80% (e.g., $4000 of $5000) goes to the sponsors; so, in this case I could turn a nice profit by making a claim that holds up to challenges, and sponsors would lose only 20% of their contributions—essentially paid to me for creating the campaign.

Does that match your understanding of how TruthMarket works?  If so, why aren’t skeptics flocking to this website to profit from exposing the masses of pseudoscientific claims that surround us?  Seriously.  It seems to me like a version of James Randi’s Million Dollar Challenge, with the twists that (a) the bounty is potentially raised by many sponsors’ small contributions, and (b) the campaign’s creator can profit financially if no one successfully challenges the claim.

I suspect a huge percentage of campaigns will fail in Step 3 above, largely because—like many crowdfunding newcomers—the campaign’s creators will naively assume they can accumulate support by simply creating the campaign and passively waiting for money to start pouring in from like-minded enthusiasts.  The problem is that most people who might give a rat’s ass about the campaign have no idea that it (or TruthMarket) even exists.  To prevent their campaign’s death by apathy, creators—and maybe the TruthMarket team—should probably take cues from various crowdfunding sites and gurus about actively building a network of supporters and shamelessly driving those people to their TruthMarket campaigns.

Our guest this week is Jonathan Weiler, a political scientist and director of global studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Weiler is co-author, with Marc Hetherington of Vanderbilt, of the book Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics.

In it, they describes this strange and troubling creature called an authoritarian—usually conservative, usually a religious fundamentalist, and very closed minded.

Authoritarians are identified in surveys by asking people some very simple questions about the qualities that children should have: Whether they should be “independent,” for instance, rather than showing respect for their elders. (See here.)

Based on this measure, Weiler and Hetherington show not only that the U.S. is full of authoritarians—but also how people with this psychological profile are driving our political polarization, as well as the divide over factual reality in the U.S

Weiler also writes regularly for the Huffington Post.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/jonathan_weiler_authoritarians_versus_reality/