This is true of many things, though the subtitle should likely be, “unless you choose to ignore it” because doubtless many will. It’s much easier to cast doubt (as the Republicans repeatedly demonstrate these days) than to reassure. There have been many claims that the lunar landings never took place, most recently by Tracy Morgan, the comedian who came to fame on Saturday Night Live. That wonderful series Myth Busters dedicated an entire show to disproving the doubters, an effort which, I thought, put the matter entirely to rest. But now NASA has done what nobody else can do: produced photographic evidence. They say a picture speaks louder than words, and it’s true:

Of this picture, NASA says,

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera team earlier released two pictures of the Apollo 11 landing site, each taken under different lighting conditions and at lower resolution than this image. This is LROC’s first picture of Apollo 11 after LRO dropped into its 50 km mapping orbit. At this altitude, very small details of Tranquility Base can be discerned. The footpads of the LM are clearly discernible. Components of the Early Apollo Science Experiments Package (EASEP) are easily seen, as well. Boulders from West Crater lying on the surface to the east stand out, and the many small craters that cover the moon are visible to the southeast.

And you can even see what looks like footprints trailing away from the landing site. An incredible window into the past. You can find the other photos here, at the NASA site.

Given how many hours I spent as a child sitting up in front of that black and white TV watching the space missions and lunar landings, I just wanted to share this here and enjoy the serving up of some real humble pie to all the doubters who probably still think it was somehow faked. But then there are those who have convinced themselves that Thomas Jefferson was some sort of modern-day Pentecostal Christian, so what can you do? If you don’t want to be convinced, you won’ be. It’s much easier to doubt after all.

I read an interesting story in the New York Times this morning, Killer Tsunamis. We’ve all seen on TV how terrifying tsunamis can be. How much worse must it have been for Bronze Age peoples who had no idea such things existed let alone any sort of warning system.

James Cameron (of whom you’d expect better) and Canadian filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici, in their recent television special, The Exodus Decoded, argued that the volcanic eruption of Santorini (ancient Thera) was responsible, that it was a tsunami that destroyed the Pharaoh’s army.[1] The producers assure the viewer that “Exodus Decoded solves the mystery of the events of the Biblical Exodus for the first time ever,” a claim that has been made before (reminds me of those PC vs. Mac commercials), and in any event, the assertions made by Cameron do not fit the chronology, as the Exodus is traditionally supposed to date from the reign of Ramesses II (1279-1213 BCE) while Thera erupted, according to radiocarbon dating, c. 1720 BCE (for some reason this most recent article gives 1630 and 1550 B.C., which would still exclude Cameron’s hypothesis from consideration). As Manfred Bietak points out in his recent review of the special, the eruption could have occurred anywhere between that date and 1500, or even later, and that “Jacobovici’s contention holds water, so to speak, only if 1500 B.C.E. proves correct.” Jacobovici and Cameron jettison Ramesses by resorting to the old argument that the Hyksos were, in fact, the Israelites,[2] which then allows the Ten Plagues to be blamed on the eruption as well.

But here other flaws appear in the Cameron/Jacobovici’s thesis: the biblical account refers to the “Way of the Philistines,” yet there were no Philistines in the Hyksos period. And the first attestation of Israel itself comes only in the 12th century with the Merneptah stela. [3] The Philistines would come only with the “Sea Peoples” – again in the 12th century – three hundred years too late, and the argument for the biblical plagues, Bietak asserts, is way off base as analyses show that sediment from the eruption did not enter Egypt at all, but was blown northwestward across Asia Minor. “The dark clouds never reached Syria, Palestine, or Egypt.” [4] In the final analysis, as Robin Lane Fox points out, “we still do not know if biblical stories happened at the places in question.”

Indeed, we do not know if they happened at all, but that’s another story altogether.

Notes:

[1] Tony Allen-Mills, “Volcanic Eruption ‘Triggered Biblical parting of Red Sea’,” The Sunday Times, August 6, 2006. See also The Exodus Decoded website at http://theexodusdecoded.com/index1.jsp The special aired on September 7, 2006. See for a discussion of the dating of the Thera eruption a study from Cornell University, “Overview and Assessment of the Evidence for the Date of the Eruption of Thera” at http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro/thera.html

[2] Albright argues that Jacob came to Egypt in Hyksos times and speaks of the “bitter years of state slavery which followed the triumph of Amosis over the Hyksos in the third quarter of the sixteenth century BC.” See idem, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1994 [1968]), 153-154.

[3] The Merneptah stela is variously dated. Michael Hasel, “Israel in the Merneptah Stela,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 296 (1994), 45-61, discusses the various views held of the inscription’s mention of Israel. Following K.A. Kitchen (1987; 1992) Hasel dates the stela to 1207 (Low Chronology). Hasel’s own findings are that the inscription “places Israel within Canaan, indicating its existence within that region as a people and not as a city-state or territory” and that the use of prt (seed) gives “additional support to the understanding that Israel functioned as an agriculturally-based/sedentary socioethnic entity in the late 13th century B.C., one that is significant enough to be included in the military campaign against the political powers in Canaan.”

[4] Manfred Bietak, “The Volcano Explains Everything – Or Does It?” BAR November/December 2006, 60-65. Bietak is currently Professor of Egyptology at the University of Vienna and Director of the Austrian Archaeological Institute in Cairo and has led Austrian expeditions at two critical sites, Avaris (modern Tell el-Daba), the capital of the Hyksos period; and of neighboring Piramesse, the Nineteenth Dynasty capital of Egypt. The Hyksos Era closes with the Egyptian capture of Avaris, an event Bietak says can be dated to between 1532 and 1512 BCE. See idem, “Egypt and Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age,” BASOR 281 (1991), 48. Egypt and Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age,”

The Hellene Annyikha at Kallisti, has posted a preview of AGORA, a film set in Alexandria, Egypt, in 391 CE, about the philosopher Hypatia. It is supposed to be released this month in Spain. Interestingly, IMDB (Internet Movie Database) has Hypatia as an atheist. Even the official website does not mention her religious views. The whole subject made me want to do a post about her and that is what I will do here, with a tip of the Viking helmet to Annyikha for providing the impetus on this mist-shrouded Saturday morning. – Hrafnkell

The intolerance of Christianity was given weight by the emperors who followed Julian. The worst excesses of a Christian state were to be realized in the late fourth and in those that followed. These excesses were not always official, that is, mandated by the imperial government but were often local and accomplished in collusion with or in defiance of local authorities. We hear quite often in the Christian martyr stories how Pagan mobs assaulted and killed Christians but we seldom hear anything about the violence directed by Christian mobs towards Pagans. But MacMullen at least has taken note of the increasingly frequent attacks by “individuals, groups and mobs” against Pagans as we proceed from the third to the sixth centuries.[1] Perhaps the best known victim of Christian mob violence is the philosopher Hypatia (370-415).[2] Hypatia was the daughter of Theon, who was head of the Museum or Library of Alexandria during the reign of Theodosius I, possibly its last.[3] Hypatia herself was a Neoplatonist and mathematician, and more importantly, a Pagan, though Dzielska argues that her Paganism was of a philosophical or intellectual variety more in line with that of Plotinus than the popular form celebrated through sacrifices and other rites.[4] She was the author of several commentaries, including one on Diophantus, an astronomical canon and a Commentary on Apollonius’ Conics. Some of her own work may survive in this last and it was as a mathematician, more than a philosopher that she was remembered after her death.[5]

Drake discusses an aspect of fourth century life (which in Alexandria, and probably elsewhere), was to be found also in the early fifth century, and that is a sort of laissez-faire attitude existing between Christian and Pagan communities. Drake sees a “richly interwoven world” that “defies easy division into ‘Christian’ and ‘pagan’.”[6] Certainly, until Cyril put in an appearance, Hypatia seems to have existed comfortably in such a world, drawing to her not only Pagans but also Christians, including two who would later become bishops. John of Nikiu testifies to her popularity among Christians, saying that she “drew many believers to her” though it does not seem she converted or even tried to convert any of them to Paganism, even the philosophical variety.[7]

The reign of Theodosius, was of course, a particularly violent and dangerous time for Pagans and this laissez-faire attitude spoken of by Drake was fast becoming history, in Alexandria and elsewhere, as can be seen with Augustine’s rhetoric and actions in Africa. We might note here that in 391 all Pagan cults had been prohibited by Theodosius II and the great temple of Serapis, the Serapeum, destroyed the same year, while in the West the revolt of Eugenius (392-394) took on the aspect of an attempted Pagan revival (though Eugenius himself was at least nominally Christian). So tensions were running high both in the empire as a whole and in Alexandria specifically. It was in this atmosphere of intolerance that Cyril, the new patriarch, assumed his see in 412 and at once began to enthusiastically enforce the emperor’s anti-Pagan legislation. In this, he soon found himself working against the Roman governor of the province, Orestes, who though a Christian was sympathetic, or at least not unsympathetic to Paganism and its adherents. This in itself is not altogether unusual, as there were Pagan Roman governors who were equally tolerant of Christianity and many Christians, as we have seen, were only nominally so. It is possible that Orestes was one of these, or was simply that much more enlightened than his counterpart, Cyril. It seems that Cyril’s intention was to seize full control of the province in order that he could complete his repressive program (or pogrom, which might be a better term). Hypatia was known to be close to Orestes, and this, combined with her outspoken nature, put her at risk, especially when the Christians felt that she stood in the way of the governor and patriarch reaching an accord. This is not impossible. As Maria Dzielska notes, “Moving in high government circles, surrounded by imperial and town dignitaries and by wealthy, well-born, and influential students, Hypatia must have had some voice in town affairs and have influenced political and social life in Alexandria.”[8]

Still, Hypatia, as Dzielska tells us, was not a Pagan activist. “She was not seen at any sites of the battles between pagans and Christians” and her own circle included Christians as well as Pagans. This broad appeal of hers was made possible by her devotion to a philosophical form of Paganism as opposed to the popular. If she did not participate in cult practices, her Christian students and admirers could have found little to criticize in her, even Patriarch Theophilus, whose conduct enraged the city’s Pagans, at least until zealots like the emperor Theodosius II and his dog, Cyril, stepped onto the stage to stoke the fires of intolerance. Cyril was seen by his contemporaries as embodying many unsavory characteristics, including impetuousness and, it would seem, borderline megalomania. J.M. Risk describes him as a “violent and hot-headed man.”[9] Installed as bishop on October 17, 412, Cyril moved at once against freedom of religion by expelling the Novatians from the city, “closing their churches, confiscating their liturgical objects, and depriving their bishop of all rights.” Next Cyril went after the Jews, whom Orestes, to his credit, supported against the bishop, and Alexandria erupted with riots, fire and death.[10] MacMullen calls Hypatia’s fate “illuminating”[11] and it is certainly that, for though she was a Pagan, she was not killed for that reason, or at least not for that reason alone. The Roman world was in the throes of religious upheaval and the factions weres still sorting themselves out. Sometimes, as in Alexandria, when they were not themselves the target, Pagans found themselves uncomfortably in the middle.

Faced with opposition and seeing that he could not obtain what he wanted by sheer force of personality or position, Cyril called upon reinforcements from the Nitrian wilderness. Cyril already possessed a fighting force, called the parabalanai or parabolans (“church workers with muscle” as MacMullen calls them), a group some 500-800 strong. Though their original purpose had been to collect the needy and conduct them to hospitals or almshouses, they had become the personal bodyguard of the patriarch. Apparently, Cyril no longer thought they were sufficiently intimidating, though they were destined to play a role in unfolding affairs, as we shall see. The monks, like Hitler’s brownshirts, were old hands at streetfighting and probably as zealous; veterans of Theophilus’ own conflicts, including those against Pagans. Certainly there is little to choose between them in terms of thuggery. Their first act seems to have been to go after Orestes himself and accuse the poor man of being a Hellene (Pagan), whereupon the stone-throwing began, despite his protestations of innocence (he had been baptized in Constantinople). The prefect was hit in the head and began bleeding, and his (apparently useless) guard detail panicked and scattered; he was only rescued by a group of concerned Alexandrian Christians. That they had the courage to stand up to Cyril’s stormtroopers speaks volumes for the courage of their convictions, and also, possibly, of their own experience in street fighting. Alexandria, after all, was always a rowdy, tempestuous city.

Orestes, once he was secure, then had the monk who had thrown the stone, one Ammonius, arrested and tortured. Ammonius died as a result and both men appealed to the capital, but moderate Christians apparently sided with the prefect against the bishop. Ammonius was, of course, hailed as a martyr by the off-put Cyril.[12] The ruling class (including the archontes, or city officials) also seems to have rallied around their embattled prefect, including his old friend, Hypatia, an event recorded by Socrates. Dzielska believes there is basis for the rumor that she stood “like a lion” between prefect and bishop; that she “shared with Orestes the conviction that the authority of the bishops should not extend to areas meant for the imperial and municipal administration. Against Orestes and his supporters were pitted Cyril’s ecclesiastical party, including his stormtroopers, the Nitrian monks, and the clergy, as well as, Dzielska thinks, some of the city’s intellectual elite and possibly the city council. What is important to note is that both parties were essentially Christian in character and makeup.[13] What is also important to note in response to the Christian claim that their religion did nothing to weaken the Roman Empire or to hasten its demise, is that this sort of nonsense would not have occurred in the Pagan empire.

Hypatia was influential, not only within Alexandria, but without, reaching, so Dzielska notes, “as far as Constantinople, Syria, and Cyrene.” Because of this, “Her friendships and influence among imperial functionaries and hieratics of the church would surely have generated anxiety among Cyril’s followers.” But Cyril had a solution to this problem. He attacked her as a witch and accused her of black magic, which had been illegal in Pagan Rome as well. She had, Cyril said, “beguiled many people through [her] satanic wiles,” including the governor. Nor, of course, did her support for the Jews stand her in good stead with Christian zealots. She was, they said, responsible for the Jewish attacks on innocent Christians in the earlier conflict, as well as for the prefect’s support of the Jews. John of Nikiu as well as Socrates Scholasticus in his Ecclesiastical History, leave accounts of Hypatia’s murder and there are both similarities and differences between them. The Christian ringleader, acting under Cyril’s direction, was apparently a lector named Peter. Hypatia was riding through the city in her chariot, on her way home, when the Christian mob, led by the parabalanai, turned their frenzy upon her.[14] There is no reason to dispute MacMullen’s summary of the events of that day, or of its significance:

It may be recalled that, snatched from the street by a mob of zealots in Alexandria, she was hacked to death in the gloom of the so-called Caesar-church and her body burned. She was a non-Christian and a prominent voice for her views; she had become the focus of the patriarch Cyril’s resentment; the lector had caught his master’s wishes and led the crowd that killed her. All this seems certain. In the background, explaining Cyril’s heat, were the indirectly connected Greek-Jewish tensions in the city and the patriarch’s and the provincial governor’s conflict over their respective followings and strength. In the contest between these two, the patriarch called on his parabalani, church workers with some muscle, as well as hundreds of monks from the Nitrian wilds with still more muscle. The monks shouted against the governor and stoned him, though he escaped alive. They constituted, with the civil and episcopal authorities and nameless zealots, the available agents of that reforming urgency which governed religious change in the centuries post-400, all conveniently seen in action in the drama that ends with the death of Hypatia.[15]

The church into which poor Hypatia was dragged was the old center of the imperial cult in Alexandria, a building called the Caesareum. It still retained this name, though it had been converted (as had so many temples) into a church and rededicated to Saint Michael. What is important to take note of is that the Caesareum was the see of Patriarch Cyril himself – yes, his Church – his headquarters, if you will.[16] Thus Cyril achieved his despicable aims through equally despicable tactics. Orestes was recalled, or requested his recall and disappears from the pages of history. The city councilors apparently tried to intervene against the bishop on behalf of the city but with Hypatia gone, Cyril’s friends at court found no obstacle to the emperor’s ear and Damascius says the affair was hushed up.[17] After the fact, Cyril justified the deed by proclaiming it part of the unrelenting war on Paganism. The path was now clear to turn on both Jews and Pagans and make Alexandria a Christian city. We see in this affair something of what was taking place all through the empire: bloodshed and violence, not only against Jews and Pagans (as most of Orestes’ supporters were Christians) but also against other Christians, heretics or just supporters of other potential bishops. Conversion, as we saw in an earlier chapter, was achieved through blood, and Drake’s period of laissez-faire was not destined to last. As Dzielska says,

[T]he murder of Hypatia, a sixty-year-old woman, widely esteemed for her wisdom and ethical virtue, was not only an act of hatred but also a criminal offense warranting a swift and severe response from those charged with upholding the law. As Damascius asserts, that response never came; those who committed the crime were unpunished and brought notable disgrace upon their city.[18]

J.M. Rist blames the rabble, claiming Cyril had no part to play in their conclusions about Hypatia’s influence over Orestes, and excuses Cyril of all charges save one, that of covering up the crime.[19] But Dzielska holds Cyril responsible, even if he did not commit the murder himself (and she does not think he planned it either), though he created the atmosphere that led to her death as “the chief instigator of the campaign of defamation against Hypatia.”[20] After all, it was his city, and his watch, and the parabalanai were under his direct command, as was Peter the Lector. Pierre Chuvin’s verdict is harsher. He makes clear that “His hands cannot have been entirely clean, since the murder was committed in his own patriarchal church.”[21]

If Hypatia, so well known and well respected, with so many connections at the imperial court, could be murdered in cold blood and in public, who was safe? As it turned out, nobody. The Theodosian Code had been only a logical extension of Constantine’s own legal enactments against traditional cults. Henceforth, even these enactments would pale beside the acts of Church authorities, acting under imperial auspices, as well as the imperial government itself, not to mention Christian mobs with and without the feared black-robed monks. Brutal suppression of Paganism would follow, from the top down, from purges at the ministerial level all the way down to the humble peasant, who as Harl notes “were frequently compelled to submit to conversion by violence.”[22] The fifth century was destined to be a century of brutal repression to rival that of the already blood-bathed fourth.

Notes:

[1] Ramsay MacMullen. Christianity & Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 33.

[2] 370 is the commonly accepted date for her birth but Maria Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995), 67-68, argues for an earlier date, c. 355.

[3] Michael A.B. Deakin, “Hypatia and Her Mathematics,” The American Mathematical Monthly 101 (1994), 234.

[4] Dzielska, 83.

[5] Deakin, 239, following P. Tannery, Diophanti Alexandrini opera omnia (Leipzig: Teubner, 1893-1895). For Hypatia’s accomplishments and contributions to the field of mathematics see Maria Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria (Harvard, 1995); Michael A B Deakin, “Hypatia of Alexandria,” Mathematics Education 8 (1992), 187-191; I Mueller, “Hypatia (370?-415),” in L S Grinstein and P J Campbell (eds.), Women of Mathematics (Westport, Conn., 1987), 74-79. Dzielska praises and Rist downplays her philosophical achievements. Rist ventures that “her dreadful end secured her a posthumous glory which her philosophical achievements would never have warranted.” See idem, “Hypatia,” 224.

[6] H. A. Drake “What Eusebius Knew: The Genesis of the ‘Vita Constantini’” Classical Philology 83 (1988), 27. See also idem, “Lambs into Lions: Explaining Early Christian Intolerance,” Past and Present 153 (1996).

[7] Dzielska (1995), 44. John of Nikiu, Chron. 84.88.

[8] Dzielska (1995), 41. Socrates notes in his Ecclesiastical History that the chief people of the city “esteemed her highly” for her sophrosyne, a Greek word meaning, roughly, self control and moderation. Damascius, who wrote a biography of her which survives only in fragments, notes as well as her sophrosyne another virtue held in high esteem by the Greeks, dikaiosyne, or justice (Dam. frag. 102). In Nicomachean Ethics (1103a6-7) Aristotle connects the virtue of sophrosyne with active, political life, which would argue in favor of an active participation on her part in the political life of the city.

[9] J.M. Rist, “Hypatia,” Phoenix 19 (1965), 222.

[10] Dzielska (1995), 83-85. The Novatians were similar to the Donatists in North Africa and felt that the Catholic Church had become both corrupt and lax. Their name for themselves really says it all: “The Pure”.

[11] MacMullen (1997), 15.

[12] Noted in MacMullen (1997), 132. Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 7.14. The body was buried in a church and the dead terrorist renamed Saint Wonderful (Thaumasius).

[13] Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 7.15. Dzielska notes that Orestes had been able, in the years 414-415 to forge a political party owing to Hypatia’s support, and that it included not only leaders of the Jewish community, which Orestes had shown support for, but also Christian moderates (Dzielska, 88).

[14] Dzielska (1995), 89-92. John of Nikiu called Peter “a perfect believer in all respects in Jesus Christ” while Hypatia is “the pagan woman”.

[15] MacMullen (1997), 15. Her murder was particularly brutal, even for that age. The weapons used in the act were “broken bits of pottery” (ostrakois aneilon), though sometimes said to be “oyster shells”.Chuvin (88-89) accepts the use of both. The place at which she was burned as outside the city, a place called Kinaron, and her pyre was a pile of sticks. See also Dzielska, 93.

[16] Pierre Chuvin, A Chronicle of the Last Pagans, trans. B.A. Archer (Cambridge, Mass, 1990), 88.

[17] Damascius, frag. 102. There was a reaction from the imperial government, which apparently realized the dangers of a Church out of control. In 416 the new praetorian prefect stripped Cyril of his authority over the parabalanai, reduced their number to 500 and “prohibited them from appearing in public places or entering the preises of the city council or its tribunals.” But just two years later Cyril regained control of his thugs and increased their number to 600. “Only the restrictions on their movements about the city remained in force” (Dzielska, 95-96). See in this regard C. Th. 16.2.42 and 43.

[18] Dzielska, 99. Damascius, frag. 102.

[19] J.M. Risk, “Hypatia,” 223-224.

[20] Dzielska, 97, who makes no mention of the fact that the Caesareum was Cyril’s see and so fails to draw the proper conclusions from this fact. It hardly seems likely that the crime would have been committed in the patriarch’s own church without his knowledge and therefore, complicity.

[21] Chuvin (1990), 89.

[22] K.W. Harl, “Sacrifice and Pagan Belief in Fifth- and Sixth-Century Byzantium” Past and Present 128 (1990), 19.

I read Dr. Peter Gleick’s review of Bjorn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist. I recommend it (the review) to everyone. Dr. Gleick writes in an engaging style – it is neither dry nor obtuse and it is very informative – even eye opening. The review can be found here.

What has always struck me about people making arguments (and I’m not just talking about global warming skeptics) is their tendency to gloss over unwelcome facts and to use statistics selectively to prove a point. It’s not at all uncommon. Everyone has a point of view, a context, and our context shapes our understanding and approach. For some this is incidental; for others it is willful.

The dangers, of course, are obvious. As Dr. Gleick points out, “By selectively using data, it is possible to support almost any conclusion.” So true. And I’m sure we’ve all seen examples of that. It’s true of any discipline. It’s perhaps more egregious when it comes to something as critical and potentially catastrophic as anthropogenic global warming. And it’s another case of letting theory determine evidence. If we’re going to bother with statistics or an appeal to data in the first place, doesn’t it behoove us to make thorough use of them? It seems to me self-defeating to use only part of the evidence in order to support a theory that, if exposed to ALL the evidence, would fall apart (and how much worse to cling to it in the face of all evidence to the contrary!). Why would anyone even wish to do something so blatantly dishonest?

Obviously, there are ideological considerations. Some people simply don’t want to accept that the world might be other than their ideology (political or religious) demands. Marxist views of history are an obvious example of this. If you accept the basic tenet of Marxism – class struggle – then all of history must be understood in this context. The problem is that not every even in history had anything to do with class struggle. Attempting to twist every historical event to fit the ideological framework has some truly laughable results. Unfortunately, our understanding of history suffers as a result.

I’ve laughed out loud at some of the Marxist interpretations of American history where the U.S. Cavalry is likened to the Nazi SS and the Reservations are extermination camps like Auschwitz. There will be people who read this and say “But of course they were!” but I will point out, with all due respect, that these people have probably not consulted the primary source material, and have made little or no attempt to understand the past within its own context. Their cry is simply a knee-jerk reaction based upon ideology. Anyone bothering to study the primary source data (as I have, and in great depth – Reports of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, anyone?) will know this is absurd. But you won’t convince a Marxist of this because ideology demands its truth in the face of any and all evidence to the contrary.

Truth, of course, is a sticky issue. Dr. Gleick has this to say of truth:

“truth” is an elusive concept in environmental and ecological science. Environmental scientists know that uncertainty is a fundamental part of many of these
issues—uncertainty due to inadequate data collection, or the complexity of ecological relationships, or the inability to know the future. As a result, much of what we know is estimation or expert judgment and should be described as such. Anyone claiming to know the “truth” is grossly overconfident and underinformed.

I would say that truth is far more elusive than people recognize. Based on very little evidence or understanding of any issue, people will assume they know the “truth” about it. This falls under the category of “everyone knows.” No, everyone doesn’t know. What you learned in grade school or from mommy or daddy or from your friends doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. Even well-meaning parents can misinform their children and I won’t even get into the number of parents who do so with malice aforethought. “Common knowledge” is no knowledge at all.

When I was growing up, “everybody knew” that General George A. Custer had led the 7th Cavalry into an ambush and gotten himself and everyone else killed. The problem is, of course, that this isn’t true. Not even close. It is difficult to arrange an ambush if you don’t know the enemy is coming, and the native encampment had no idea the 7th Cavalry was on its way. It was not the Native Americans who surprised Custer, but Custer who surprised them, and not just once, but twice. Yes, he approached a large enemy encampment in broad daylight and caught them by surprise. What is often claimed to be a terrible blunder was actually quite an accomplishment if you bother to study the facts.

In the same way it’s easy to accuse Custer of being a “glory hound” or superabundantly arrogant, but it’s another to actually study the man (let alone the battle itself) and have the integrity to admit that your understanding was based on nothing more than “common knowledge.” In We Were Soldiers, the Mel Gibson film about the Vietnam War, one character is made to utter some truly ridiculous words: “Custer was a pussy.” I invite you to actually study Custer’s war record and then return to me and in all honesty make that claim. You won’t be able to. And to his credit, I’ve found no evidence that Sergeant Major Plumley actually uttered those words.

I use the Little Big Horn as an example because it in many ways mirrors the debate on climate change. It is a divisive issue, first of all, one that breeds fanatics on both extremes and one that allows for little middle room. One is either “pro” or “anti” Custer, as though the event can be narrowed down to one man, who is taken completely out of the context not only of his time in history but even the Indian Wars themselves. It is also a topic that invites many of the same “truths” to be put on display, as well as a selective and contentious use of the evidence, of facts. The “anti-Custer” faction in particular remind me of global warming skeptics, eagerly making bold judgments without any support of the evidence.

I remember being told by a Native American friend that Custer engaged in genocide on a large scale, at one point killing thousands of natives. The problem with this claim, one which they repeatedly insisted was true while refusing to back it up with evidence, is that it’s demonstrably untrue. Custer was an “Indian hater” we here. Yet if you actually read Custer’s My Life on the Plains or his personal correspondence, you find no evidence of this. On the contrary, his opinion of the Native Americans is far more nuanced than is usual in the period, and is quite thoughtful and open minded. In truth, Custer, not alone among frontier army officers, was sympathetic to the plight of the Native American peoples.

People like to point to the Washita as a massacre perpetrated by the hateful Custer, but in fact, it was not Custer and his men who massacred unarmed Native Americans. It was the Indian scouts in his service. And when he was informed this was taking place, Custer ordered it stopped immediately. Yes, you can claim the village was unarmed and helpless, but if you want to take the incident out of its historical context you’re condemning yourself (and anyone who listens to you) to ignorance. The facts are that the village contained men who had recently raided white settlements and killed civilians. Only an idiot would have thought he could approach the village and force the chief to give up the culprits. First of all, the chief had no authority over his people of that kind, and secondly, the wanted men would have escaped, ridden downstream, roused the other villages, and then either everyone would have escaped or Custer would have found himself surrounded by enemies in the Washita valley, with unhappy results for the 7th Cavalry. Tell me honestly he would not have been blamed for this had the 7th been mauled there rather than 8 years later at the Little Big Horn (Doubt me? Captain Benteen, a Custer “hater” accused Custer of abandoning Major Elliot and his detachment at the Washita, but in the aftermath of the Little Big Horn had no problem condemning Custer for not abandoning the wounded in order to save his command).

History is complex. You cannot pretend to understand what happened without understanding that context. It’s easy to be an arm-chair general if you don’t mind looking like a fool. It’s easy to pretend to be an expert on anything if you don’t mind looking like a fool. That doesn’t stop people from doing it, and it doesn’t stop these people from misleading others. Hitler is a prime example of this. And Hitler is far from alone in history. Our own culture is full of such people, people who, for reasons of their own, selfish reasons, will lie in order to get their way. They’ll demonstrate an ignorance of the facts – a willful ignorance – and ignore all evidence that proves them wrong, and vilify their opponents as liars and worse the entire time.

That is why we, as ordinary people, must fortify ourselves through education. I don’t mean education in general, but in specific areas. That is why I have always urged anyone who has read my own words to not take my words at face value, but if the subject catches your attention at all, to read up on it and to form your own conclusions. I do not knowingly or intentionally withhold any facts as I come across them. I am more than willing to discuss alternative interpretations. We cannot be afraid of the truth. We cannot insist on a narrow interpretation that excludes unwelcome evidence, not and pretend to know what we’re talking about. If ideology is more important to you than truth, so be it. I cannot change that. But I can do my best to demonstrate to everyone out there what you’re about and what your game is. The biggest enemy of ideology is knowledge.

So whether the subject is religion, politics, climate change, or history, we must be willing to examine ALL the evidence. And we must then weigh and analyze the evidence and find a theory that is best suggested by that evidence. I did not go into the Little Big Horn intending to prove anything. I went into the subject wanting to learn the truth. Having been to the battlefield numerous times, I wanted to be able to stand at any point along Custer’s route and understand what he was thinking, and why. That is the only reason to study any historical subject. And the same holds true with climate and religion. What really happened, and why? What is really happening with our climate, and why? Simply assuming something is a canard and then doing your best to prove it while ignoring half the evidence is an intellectually and morally bankrupt exercise. You’re doing not only yourself a disservice, but everyone else as well.

Be intellectually honest. And demand equal honesty from those whose words you read or listen to. You may not like the truth when you find it, but it will at least be the truth, and that, for me, is worth any amount of disappointment, because let’s face it. You can pretend it’s not really cold, but that blind insistence isn’t going to save your fingers when they fall off, and burying your head in the sand won’t save you from the truck barreling down on you. At least, if you have your head up, unhappy as the sight of that truck may be, at least you’ll have a chance of doing something about it.

Remember, we create our fates. But we can also rise above them.

It just never ends. Having been visited by a couple of “contrarians” (aka “deniers”) following my post “Extreme Earth” I’ve added a list of links relating to the math. Having seen this denounced by an advocate for the mining industry (itself a major pollutor) I’ve added some links below from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), whose site I urge anyone interested in these matters to visit. Of particular interest is the UCS’ articles on the “global warming contrarian” movement. I will include one example of why people who denounce global warming should not have their claims accepted at face value.

UCS Examines ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’

Background

A book by Bjørn Lomborg, a political scientist and professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, has created quite a stir since its 2001 release. Lomborg accuses scientists and environmental organizations of making false and exaggerated claims about the world’s environmental problems. He concludes that population growth is not a problem, that there is plenty of freshwater around, that deforestation rates and species extinctions are grossly exaggerated, that the pollution battle has been won, and that global warming is too expensive to fix. A self-proclaimed environmentalist and skeptic, he claims that his reanalysis of environmental data measures “the real state of the world.”

The heavily promoted book, published by Cambridge University Press, has received significant attention from the media and praise from commentators writing in The Economist, The New York Times, and Washington Post. For example, the Post’s reviewer (a philosophy professor from New Zealand) concluded that it was “a magnificent achievement,” and “the most significant work on the environment since the appearance of its polar opposite, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, in 1962.” Meanwhile, groups with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo are using the book to promote their “no need to take action to address global environmental problems” agenda. For example, the “Cooler Heads Coalition” — formed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and others to “dispel the myths of global warming” — featured Lomborg in a Capitol Hill briefing on global warming.

Does this book merit such positive attention? Does Lomborg provide new insights? Are his claims supported by the data? A healthy skepticism towards the claims of others is, after all, one of the hallmarks of good science. And, at first glance, Lomborg’s book appears to be an objective and rigorous scientific analysis. It is published by a leading academic press, and contains an extensive bibliography and nearly 3,000 footnotes.

To answer these questions, UCS invited several of the world’s leading experts on water resources, biodiversity, and climate change to carefully review the sections in Lomborg’s book that address their areas of expertise. We asked them to evaluate whether Lomborg’s skepticism is coupled with the other hallmarks of good science – namely, objectivity, understanding of the underlying concepts, appropriate statistical methods and careful peer review. Reviewing Lomborg’s claims are Dr. Peter Gleick, an internationally recognized expert on the state of freshwater resources; Dr. Jerry Mahlman, one of the most highly regarded atmospheric scientists and climate modelers; and top biologists and biodiversity experts Dr.’s Edward O. Wilson, Thomas Lovejoy, Norman Myers, Jeffrey Harvey and Stuart Pimm.

These separately written expert reviews unequivocally demonstrate that on closer inspection, Lomborg’s book is seriously flawed and fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis. The authors note how Lomborg consistently misuses, misrepresents or misinterprets data to greatly underestimate rates of species extinction, ignore evidence that billions of people lack access to clean water and sanitation, and minimize the extent and impacts of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases. Time and again, these experts find that Lomborg’s assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and selectively cites literature — often not peer-reviewed — that supports his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that does not. His consistently flawed use of scientific data is, in Peter Gleick’s words “unexpected and disturbing in a statistician”.

These reviews show that The Skeptical Environmentalist fits squarely in a tradition of contrarian works on the environment that may gain temporary prominence but ultimately fail to stand up to scientific scrutiny. Others, such as Julian Simon and Gregg Easterbrook, have come before him, and others no doubt will follow. Correcting the misperceptions these works foster is an essential task, for, as noted above, groups with anti-environmental agendas use these works to promote their objectives. It is also an unfortunate, time-consuming distraction, for it pulls talented scientists away from the pressing research needed to help us understand the environmental challenges we face and their prospective solutions.

Winston Churchill once said, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on”, reminding usof the parable of the Tortoise and the Hare. Like the Hare, Lomborg’s lie has raced out in front of the truth. With the help of these careful scientific peer reviews, UCS hopes that the truth, like the Tortoise, will catch up and emerge the ultimate victor.

Editor’s note: In addition to these UCS-solicited reviews, critiques of Lomborg’s book have also been published in Scientific American, Nature, Science, and other scientific journals, as well as on several web sites (see Related Links).

Follow the link below to review other information on the “contrarian” movement.

Global Warming Contrarians

The following link will lead you to articles on the science of global warming.

Global Warming Science