Books and Blogs, Part 1

I didn’t know it beforehand, but I arrived at the climate debate somewhat prepared. Not by studying meterology, climate dynamics or ocean characteristics. Not by intensive poring over famous debates between Lincoln and Douglas. Not by looking at famous scientific controversies such as Wegener’s theory of plate tectonics.

It was popular literature of the 60s and 70s. I watched two scientific conflicts play out in books and magazines (finally a legitimate reason to buy Playboy!) and I still follow the vestiges of them now on the Internet.

When I was growing up I thought Thor Heyerdahl was the epitome of cool. I mean, c’mon—the guy’s name was Thor and he sailed across the Pacific in a raft. Then he sailed across the Atlantic in another raft. I naturally took his side when I started hearing about why he really did it—to provide some evidentiary input into the decades-old controversy regarding Pre-Columbian contact.

tdy_kontiki_130426

We don’t hear about it much anymore, but I don’t think it’s settled even now. Heyerdahl argued throughout his life that contact between the New World and the Old was more than possible—it was almost certain to have happened. He was late to the debate, which started near the beginning of the 20th Century, and Heyerdahl wandered into a vicious academic fight between two entrenched camps—the diffusionists, who like Heyerdahl argued for extensive contact and the isolationists, who maintained that the oceans had served as an uncrossable barrier prior to Columbus’ landing in 1492 (later amended to include a brief Norse colony in Newfoundland in the 10th century). Heyerdahl and the diffusionists countered with botany and biology—the sweet potato, native to the Americas, was found in the Asian islands and even had the same name (or similar variants). The same was true for the pineapple. Some of the natives who greeted the first Europeans in Polynesia didn’t really look all that… Polynesian, being white skinned with red hair.

Academia was not kind to Heyerdahl. Although much of what he advocated has grudgingly been accepted into mainstream science, it comes without his name attached to it. Some of his more extreme conjectures are used as a valid reason to reject his more common-sense ideas. In my opinion 30 years later, Heyerdahl was probably largely correct in his main themes and will eventually receive more credit than he does now.

I fell in love with anthropology while following this debate and I love it still. To my mind Heyerdahl was convincing—but I recognized even then that my natural sympathies influenced my thinking on the subject and I tried to keep an open mind. Many subsequent findings chipped away at some of Heyerdahl’s ideas, but the basic evidence remains to this day. His arguments are perhaps best summed up in Early Man and the Ocean, published in 1978. One key element of that book was Heyerdahl’s ability to empathize with his opponents. Far from despising or ridiculing them, he recognized the altruistic component that inspired the isolationist school—they were fighting to defend the intellectual and cultural abilities of Native Americans to invent and innovate without the need for the Great White Fathers to bring them civilization. I tried to be as charitable as I read about the controversy.

7 responses to “Books and Blogs, Part 1

  1. I read Kon Tiki in 1963 and Carleton Coon the next year. It was a good controversy to grow up on.
    I took my geophysics in the late 60’s when it was still possible to teach different theories. What I lived through had nothing to do with the history that Naomi Oreskes wrote.
    I was an adult when the quantitized redshift controversy oocurred and I looked at it differently because of those experiences.
    And of course I first became interested in climate change 42 years ago. That’s my excuse for being a cynic.

  2. One of the ignored climate /energy stories of the year is that they finally got a reasonable measure of fugitive methane from fracking/horizontal drilling. Even the minimum value is high enough to preclude any greenhouse advantage in converting coal to natural gas.

  3. That’s not what I meant. There is no longer any advantage in converting coal fired plants to gas fired. The fugitive methane released as a result of horizontal drilling has a greater greenhouse effect than the co2 saved by converting a generator from coal to gas. Also, if solar or wind is backed up with fracked gas there is no net decrease in greenhouse effect.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s