Rocket Scientist

Once more I cycle back to this topic.  I expect we’ll be hearing a lot of screaming and see a lot of hand waving the next year or so as Obama takes office with his cadre of science types.  There will likely be flack and fighting over space and education and a number of other intellectual/science/technology topics.  But the really ugly stuff I expect to see, however, is going to be on the topic of global warming.

I’m not going to go over the science here.  I know where to find it and I’ve found it compelling.  Here are some consensus reports and statements.  In all cases, although there is considerable variance in prediction of the level of human involvement and the timetable (and magnitude) of the consequences if no changes are made, the underlying statement is the same for all of these. The climate and/or environmental balance is changing and humans have helped cause it (largely because of their unchecked generation of CO2).
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.interacademycouncil.net/CMS/Reports/11840.aspx
http://www.caets.org/nae/naecaets.nsf/(weblinks)/WSAN-78QL9A?OpenDocument
http://www.european-academy.at/memorandum/31._LET%27S_BE_HONEST_-_Festplenum_03.03.07_-_final2.pdf
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
http://www.rmets.org/news/detail.php?ID=332
http://www.amos.org.au/publications/cid/3/t/publications

There are additional references listed on Wikipedia’s article:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I give you these because they either build on or reference literally tons of data on and analysis of global changes.  I am not a climatologist and am not qualified to endorse or refute this data; I will say, however, I would have to have very compelling evidence, very compelling data, incontrovertible, before I would take it upon myself to deny the repeated and compelling consensus of such farflung and diverse scientific organizations.  I’m quite convinced myself, but, then I’m quite familiar with probabilistic models, big picture long range modeling and the dangers of looking at snapshots.  Do, please, take a look at the data, the reasoning, the research done over decades that led to these painful conclusions.  But I’m not going to argue them.  If you don’t find them compelling, nothing I tell you will change your mind.

But, to me, this issue is not about the data. It’s about why there is so much passionate resistance to this conclusion.  I will tell you, I don’t understand it.

OK, on one level, I can.  If one acknowledges blame, one faces responsibility.  And there has been a very capable PR campaign that has been whining at the top of their lungs that responsibility is “too expensive” and some kind of cruel and unusual punishment.  Given that the very spotty refutation of the global warming consensus is coming from this same campaign and that most people are ill-qualified to judge the original science, perhaps it would do us more good examine this assertion that trying to correct the problem is (a) an unreasonable burden and somehow unfair, and (b) that those promoting the notion of taking steps to curb CO2 production do so in their own self-interest.

As a science oriented individual, I can safely say that I don’t live my life thinking technology=bad.  I don’t believe most scientists do.  But what are we asking for with (a)?  In a nutshell, in order to reduce the problem and/or undo some of the damage already done, we are looking for drastic reductions in the next few decades in fossil fuel use, CO2 (and potentially other greenhouse gas) production through alternate fuels, more environmentally friendly practices, and energy conservation.

So, in order to meet these requirements, we need to use our limited energy resources more efficiently.  If I improve the energy efficiency of my home, my car, my habits, I not only help the environment, I save myself money.  What’s the down side?

Ditto for making energy production cleaner.  Who loses?  Increasing auto fuel efficiency? Who loses?  Anyone besides the utilities and fossil fuel industries?

If I put solar panels on my home, wind generators above my home, I may or may not make enough energy to cover my needs, but, worst case, I will use less energy than I would otherwise.  And, with no additional waste, no additional expenditure, I will continue to use less energy as long as there is wind and sun, effectively unending resources.  Except for the initial investment, it’s “free” whereas fossil fuels, while “cheaper” today, will always cost and, let’s face it, the cost will only go up.  Additionally, transitions will not be quick or instantaneous.  More research and time will probably be required to make the most of alternatives, to make them accessible to the masses; however, putting it off only makes the time when they’re viable that much further away, leaving the populace, for a much longer time, held hostage by the energy industry because of a lack of viable alternatives.  So, I ask, what’s the down side to this research, to promoting more along these lines?

For us, for those of us who are normal people, I can’t understand what the complaints are for, what the resistance is for.  I mean, refusing to take steps to change our habits, what’s our incentive to maintain the status quo?  All it can do is cost us more in the long run.  Potentially, a lot more.

And that brings me to (b).  A great deal has been made of the supposed advantages to scientists for promoting flawed science.  Um, OK, that’s a hell of an accusation. Proof?  See, for years, scientists put their careers on the line to take this stance (especially in this country).  Most scientists have nothing whatsoever to gain with their stances (same for me) even if the rest of the world backed them 100%.  And what they risk, if they are dishonest, is everything.  Whereas politicians, oil executives (and their paid shills) and corporate executives can be demonstrably dishonest and catastrophically wrong and still have careers, that is not true of scientists.  One deliberate falsehood, one horrific mistake, and they face retirement and disgrace.

So, if the scientists have nothing to gain, what can we say about their critics?  Well, who benefits with the status quo?  Not the general public.  In fact, no one really except those that make their money from the current energy systems and their support structures.  Perhaps, if we’re going to question motives, that might be a good place to look, including how many “primary experts” are paid by people who have a concerted interest in keeping us from finding alternate ways of powering our world.

Food for thought.

*P.S. For those who start to complain about Al Gore, believe me when I tell you, he isn’t the source of any of the science that the organizations cited depend upon.

Update:  While you’re busy being skeptical and looking into the motivations of the global warming skeptics, check out Frontline (which notes the ties to energy industries of several significant skeptics - as well as some with ties to tobacco where they pooh-poohed THOSE risks), a report on Exxon’s disinformation campaign (including many of the tobacco campaigns tactics and even same people) and exxonsecrets.org run by Greenpeace and showing links between Exxon and “independent” organizations and skeptics.  Realclimate.org is also an excellent resource for science answers for those seemingly reasonable criticisms proposed by global warming deniers.  Well worth checking out and doing your own thinking.  This affects you and people who have done nothing to contribute the problem as well.