“The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir.” [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark]
Have aliens actually visited earth? Is the government hiding the evidence?
Is astrology science?
Are there such things as ghosts? Poltergeists? Remote viewing?
Are psychics real?
For each of these questions, there are no answers grounded in science. There is, instead, a belief system at work where people either believe in such things or they don’t.
Science is the search for facts…not truth. If it’s truth you seek, I suggest you read this, or this, or even this.
Science is a process; a road to discovery. And that’s what makes the current debate about global warming so fascinating. It reveals science at its best and worst. It involves the use of science for political purposes as well as science for the sake of science alone. It’s revealing of a process that has heroes, villains, cads, charlatans, prophets, and holy men.
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge — even to ourselves — that we’ve been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise.)” [Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection]
Sagan was talking of the persistence of “pseudo-science” in the popular culture. But he may just as well have been talking about the debate over global warming. BOTH those who warn of imminent cataclysm and those who pooh-pooh the idea of global warming have been proven wrong over the last two decades as tremendous advances in scientific disciplines such as Climatology, Atmospheric Physics, and Evolutionary Biology change the scientific nature of the debate.
Everyone now agrees that the level of greehouse gases in our atmosphere are rising. And that’s just about where agreement ends. How fast are levels rising? Are humans largely to blame? What does it mean for the climate? Is there anything meaningful we can do to stop it?
As for the last question, many environmentalists think they’ve found an answer (or at least the beginning of an answer) in the Kyoto Agreement, or more formally the KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE.
There’s been a lot of disinformation on BOTH sides as to what exactly the protocols would or wouldn’t do as far as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. To summarize: Not too damn much.
This week, 5,400 delegates from 189 countries have gathered in Buenos Aires for what’s called COP 10, the 10th annual conference of the parties to the United Nations agreement to combat climate change. In an article for Tech Central Station, James K. Glassman gives an overview of the conference:
“I have been attending these extravaganzas for five years now, and they are an exercise, in the grandly self-important style of the U.N., in wheel-spinning and America-bashing. But something is changing. While a superficial glance indicates the extremists are winning, they are, in fact, on the run. They’ve failed — largely because opponents like MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen, who has called warming theory a “religious belief” rather than sound science, haven’t been intimidated. Now, a consensus is building to tackle global warming the right away.”
Glassman sums up current evidence:
“Economic studies show that, to achieve even minuscule temperature reductions, economic growth in the U.S. would have to fall to stagnation levels. Imagine the impact on the rest of the world of such a decline.
Meanwhile, new research is casting doubt on the assumptions behind the science of warming — especially severe flaws in climate computer models.”
He points out the reasons why Kyoto is failing:
“Anyone with even minimal knowledge of energy and the science of global warming knows Kyoto is a sham. Europe isn’t meeting its targets, and, anyway, the rise in CO2 emissions is steepest, not in the U.S. and Germany, but in China and India, with booming coal-based economies. And China and India, like more than 100 other developing nations, are exempt from Kyoto’s strictures.”
The problems associated with the science of global warming are being addressed. The above mentioned flaws in climate models is nothing new…the fact is there has NEVER been a climate model that’s come close to predicting changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. One possible explanation is the WAY those measurements are figured. Another explanation could have to do with the earth’s oceans and how they absorb CO2.
Given the enormous costs to the world economy, Kyoto is probably dead. What comes next should, as Mr. Glassman points out, be based on sound science, not the fervent belief of some activists. Here’s one conclusion reached by “Science” magazine:
“…that such deep reductions are impossible to achieve using current technologies. In 2000, the environmental think tank, Resources for the Future, issued a cost-benefit analysis of ambitious near-term greenhouse gas emissions restrictions. “A striking finding of many I(ntegrated) A(ssessement) models is the apparent desirability of imposing only limited GHG controls over the next 20 or 30 years,” reported the RFF researchers. “According to the estimates in most IA models, the costs of sharply reducing GHG concentrations today are too high relative to the modest benefits the reductions are projected to bring.” (From an article by Ronald Bailey in Tech Central Station)
Those “modest benefits” include a reduction in GHG of less than .02 degrees…all for an estimated $700 billion .
Clearly, science has a role to play in the next round of the climate change debate. How that information will be used will depend on whether people are willing to put aside the politics, their prejudices, and their ideologies in order to achieve an agreement.
“Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don’t practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us — and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along.” [Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection]