Science, Politics and Global Warming
On June 8th I was listening to an NPR program called Science Friday. First let me say that this is one of my favorite programs. I LIKE these guys and what they do.
This is why I wanted to scream just a bit on this particular Friday. The subject was global warming in general and its current impact on Alaska in particular. The context was a live panel discussion of some pretty impressive sounding science types with expertise in Alaska. Short story: If you don’t think global warming is real or a problem, come on up north and watch Alaska melt. Seriously.
OK, so I’m listening and (hopefully) learning, and they open the show up for call-in questions. Here’s where the problem starts.
A guy calls in and raises the following question:
Note: This is a paraphrase of the exact question and responses. Here’s the link to the 2-hour broadcast. I originally heard this in my car and I couldn’t bring myself to sit through the entire thing until I heard this question and responses to quote so I’m going on my memory.
Question:
We know based on the available evidence that significant climate change has occurred several times throughout the history of the planet. The forces and factors involved here are hugely powerful and complex and our understanding of them is limited. Given this, has anyone given serious thought to the idea that efforts to stop it or slow it down may be the wrong way to address the problem? Can humans legitimately do anything to significantly alter this process, or should we be focusing our efforts on adapting to the change more than fighting it?
As I understand his point, this guy is saying that the problem is real, BUT that all the efforts to “stop” global warming may be futile and we need to adapt rather than fight. Until we have an answer to this question, it seems we’re quite possibly spending time and resources in the wrong places.
Look, I think this is a great question. The possible implications are scary, humbling, and profoundly politically difficult, but the stakes are very high here. We need to get this one right.
Hearing this question reminded me of a related story of the melting of the last glacier in Germany and the efforts to stave off the inevitable for as long as possible.
So I waited to hear the answer from a sample of folks who are professionally obligated to either a) answer the question if they believe they have a valid response or b) state flat out that they don’t know and discuss the issues raised in the question to the best of their current ability. This is what scientists do. It’s why we pay them and should listen to them.
So what happened? When faced with this potentially explosive and foundational question, these folks responded like politicians: They completely ignored it. Their responses were all some variation on yes, climate change is powerful and that’s why we need to start dealing with it now. This response makes me suspect that they really don’t know, or they do and the answers are scarier than they want to own up to.
I understand why they did this. Most or all of the panel members were Alaskans, and this issue hits very close to home. Saying that there’s a good chance that there’s not much we can do except metaphorically move to higher ground would be painful and likely seen as defeatist. It also seems like the decision has already been made, possibly independent of the evidence. See this ad to “fight global warming” . But scientists get paid to give us the data that exist and their best interpretation of it. When they act like politicians and ignore the scary stuff or tell us what we want to hear, we all lose.
Be Brave. Be Truthful.
-Grant
June 20th, 2007 10:16
I don’t listen to traditional radio very often but when I do it’s NPR or nothing. The panel of scientific experts by acting like politics did a great disservice to the listening audience. We CAN stop contributing to the greenhouse gases that are already existent in our atmosphere, we CAN work on expanding technology that will capture carbon, and we SHOULD. If one makes a mistake, a big mistake, and realizes it and does nothing they have “died” a bit. Life is no longer meaningful until they work on fixing their mistake and it’s consequences. We SHOULD also be realists and prepare ourselves for the consequences of global warming. If you live near the coast consider relocating. Store up on supplies. Take a survival course just in chance you face a natural disaster. I heard that Wall Street investors are cashing in on speculative land purchases up north mainly due global warming. It is time to stop acting passively. It is time for passionate action.
Another great post.
Be well and enjoy the day.
June 20th, 2007 18:15
Prepare for the consequences?
The likely consequences are too scary to contemplate! Literally too scary. It goes way beyond storing supplies.
Take a single consequence – rising sea waters. The small Pacific Islands that will go under are small beer. New Zealand has already put legislation in place that will allow people from a dozen island nations to relocate to New Zealand when their homelands go under.
But who is going to take in the 500million Bangladeshis when 3/4 of the country goes under? The deltas of the Ganges, Nile and Yellow River in China are home to hundreds of millions. Will the US do its bit? Given that the US is responsible for the lions share of CO2, will they take the lions share of displaced people?
Better put massive effort into reducing the problem, rather than put your head in the sand and say ‘let’s adapt’. It is the poorest people and the poorest countries that will have to do most of the adapting. NZ is showing great foresight and leadership in its preparedness.
Perhaps the scientists on the radio weren’t quite ready for this question.
June 20th, 2007 23:36
Gillian,
I think your last statement was the point of Grant’s post. If anyone was apt to answer the question well, it was the panel. They didn’t, which means either that they didn’t have an answer, or didn’t want to answer.
{rant on}
Either way, shame on them for having the opportunity to be honest and realistic and not pouncing on it. They failed in their responsibility, and should lose whatever grant funds they have obtained for global warming research. They want us to be good stewards of the environment, hange our habits and establish new mores, but they can’t - or won’t - speak factually.
What does this say to me, as someone coming from the other side of the aisle? It says that hype is more important than action. That someone up there in the global warming ivory tower thinks, to steal Nicholson’s line in “A Few Good Men”, that “we can’t handle the truth”. That lies and propaganda dressed up as worst case scenarios are better than bad news that might be somewhat probable. That the proposal of alternative theories or the questioning of the status quo gets you blacklisted, but honest questions from the public (i.e. anyone that doesn’t look to have a political agenda) need not get answered.
{rant off}
That was not directed at you Gillian, I just needed to get it out of my system.
Grant,
Fantastic post. Not so much because of the outcome; I can tell it was disheartening to you. The story points out why conservatives - not Republicans, but conservatives - are skeptical of the global warming movement. If this panel would have come clean, it would have given us skeptics a chance to ponder the response, maybe even ask more questions. Instead, the movement looks even more like the boy crying wolf. My prediction is that this radio session will be analyzed, re-analyzed and reviewed yet again, and the conclusion will be this: we can’t let anyone from the public ask questions, but we must set up these sessions more like staged town hall meetings so we don’t look like fools.
In my profession, failure to look at a problem from all angles can bite me, my project team, my company and my customers in the backside. I am compelled to look at all potential problems, weigh the probability and risk, and devise risk mitigation strategies that are in line with the probability and impact of the risks. If this were done the right way for the global warming cause, incremental changes could be investigated, reported and implemented without whipping the public into a franzy.
My issue with global warming isn’t that investigation is ongoing; that’s what should be happening. My issue is that groupthink has settled in, and that’s never a good thing.
G’night y’all.
Rick
June 21st, 2007 01:18
“It also seems like the decision has already been made, possibly independent of the evidence”
I think that the decision has been made BECAUSE of the evidence, not despite it. There is now scientific consensus on the subject — and that is quite an achievement.
I am wondering whether the scientists on the panel felt unqualified to discuss adaptive measures which would all be political/social, instead they stuck to what they know best — i.e. science. It would have been good if they had responded with the b) option. I agree.
“has anyone given serious thought to the idea that efforts to stop it or slow it down may be the wrong way to address the problem?” Well, YES!! they have … the Bush administration has spent a lot of effort trying to ignore the evidence and steer away from addressing the problem, to the point of doctoring scientific reports before they are released.
Agree that we need to be wary of groupthink… but consensus need not be groupthink, need it?
Finally, an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of remediation. The vast proportion of our efforts needs to go to preventative measures, cos the cost of remediation will be massive. Let’s not focus on what we’ll do when temps rise by 5 degrees, let’s focus on the efforts that will help ensure they don’t rise more than 2 degrees. That will still cause flooding enough to displace millions.
Great maps here… http://flood.firetree.net/
June 22nd, 2007 08:04
Gillian,
There are several elements of your response that raise more issues for me than they answer.
1. Textbook definitions of ‘consensus’, are: “agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole”. (WorldNet) Or, “an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole”. (American Heritage Dictionary) Or, “majority of opinion”. (Dictionary.com) The first two definitions were the ones I learned throughout my schooling years. I would surmise that the community of believers of the church of Global Warming use the word ‘consensus’ instead of ‘majority opinion’ because they, too, are well aware of what definition we all learned for the word ‘consensus’. This is not honest.
2. You didn’t respond to my charge of blacklisting non-believers and heretics. No one ever does. To me, lack of response on this charge is up there with the non-response the panel gave to the caller. It’s swept under the rug. Prove to me that the heretics aren’t persecuted, and we may have reason to come to the table together.
3. Organizationally, the community of believers looks to be more like a single, non-reproducing amoeba, than it does an emanating group of concentric circles. The former looks like it’s growing because it changes shape, but really doesn’t grow. The latter grows, and its growth is obvious because you have an origin from which you can measure the growth. a) IPCC members have left the GW table over everything from differences of outcome to differences of approach to disagreements about the use of political strong-arming. b) A significant number of scientists that signed the UN report on global warming are not meteorologists or climatologists. That’s like me, as a project manager, signing onto a report on electrical engineering. Here, the community of believers is continually redefined to make it look like we have majority of opinion.
4. Many businesses and industry leaders fail – and bring down their entire enterprise - because they say “we believe it’s true, so we HAVE to do it”. Good people are martyred for having different opinions and approaches, even if they agree with the premise. I’ve been on the wrong side of this by-product of groupthink a number of times. I’m used to it. People become blinded when they are in the “in” group, and regularly lead their projects or movements to dismal failure.
All I’m asking for is intellectual honesty. What I see is folks saying, “so what, we need to do something anyway.” That’s not honest.
Off to work.
Rick
June 22nd, 2007 10:37
Rick,
I’ll address this issue in more detail in a post soon, but for now here are a few comments.
1. Don’t bother analyzing “consensus” linguistically. Scientists use the term in an attempt to get their message through the thick skulls of people who have “read a website” or think that because a guy on TV doubts global warming there must be a serious debate on the issue. But then, how do you convince a population who are not swayed by factual evidence?
Grant makes a very good point that scientific experts don’t communicate well. Much of this stems from the fact that scientist think in ways radically different from the general population. Most people are swayed by emotional arguments. Scientists aren’t. They are swayed by facts and evidence. Worse, they tend to think everyone is swayed by facts and evidence.
If a marketing company spent the amount of money the oil companies spend on global warming “skepticism”, and spent it arguing that we never landed on the moon, most people would be “certain” that the moon landings were faked. And scientists would be at a loss on how to convince people otherwise.
2. Blacklisting rarely happens in academia, but when it does it happens for one reason: intellectual dishonesty. Ignore clear evidence, spread lies about your work or the work of others, or cherry pick evidence in attempt to validate your fringe theory, and you get thrown out of the club. That isn’t groupthink or an unwillingness to hear opposing views, that is professionalism. If a doctor engages in fringe medical techniques that put patients at risk, they lose their license. If a lawyer violates the legal code of conduct, they are disbarred. This is what professionalism means.
You are not asking for intellectual honesty. Intellectual honesty would be to try understanding why people who spend their lives studying climate change accept global warming as scientific fact. All you are doing is using emotional language to ridicule the view you don’t believe.
I have tried before to give you an honest overview of global warming as a non-climatologist scientist. I have tried to provide you with honest sources of information regarding the topic. You can either start learning about the evidence or not. It is your choice. But playing the skeptic doesn’t make global warming any less real.
June 22nd, 2007 12:36
My sarcastic apologies for not being a climatologist or meteorologist. It’s obvious I’m too dumb to see what you’re trying to say, and just don’t have the wherewithal to “get it”. My ability to reason and use my intellectual capacities fall off the face of the earth when it comes to this subject.
As you wish, I will choose to no longer ask questions - since you ranted instead of answering them anyway - and will simply numbly accept whatever you say as reasonable and unquestionable, like a lemming headed for the cliff.
Touche. You can take me off your list of contributors, too. This is exactly how you stop people from listening to you.
Rick
June 22nd, 2007 14:54
Rick,
Different people have different skills and different areas of expertise. The difficulty you seem to have is in acknowledging that climatologists know more about climate change than you do. Even I know more about climatology than you, and I’m just an astrophysicist. To begin with I at least understand what constitutes scientific evidence and scientific skepticism, which is something you seem to struggle with given the nature of your questions.
You didn’t ask any questions on global warming. What you did was refer to global warming as a church, requiring blind faith, which persecutes heretics. If you have some actual questions, then I would be happy to answer them. But if you are going to be anti-intellectual, then don’t expect intellectuals to show you much respect.
I haven’t stopped you from listening. You stopped listening long ago. I’m just tired of wearing kid gloves around people who think ad hominem arguments constitute reasoned discourse. You can either reach out and try to broaden your understanding of the physical world, or you can run away and hide from the mean scientist, but my coddling of willful ignorance is at an end.
I’ll leave the light on for you.
Brian
June 22nd, 2007 17:56
I’ll chip in cos Rick addressed his questions to me… though I’m very glad to see your response Brian — it is much better informed than mine. But here we go!
1. Textbook definitions of ‘consensus’, are: “agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole”. (WorldNet) Or, “an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole”. (American Heritage Dictionary) Or, “majority of opinion”. (Dictionary.com) The first two definitions were the ones I learned throughout my schooling years. I would surmise that the community of believers of the church of Global Warming use the word ‘consensus’ instead of ‘majority opinion’ because they, too, are well aware of what definition we all learned for the word ‘consensus’. This is not honest.
OK - ‘Majority view’ may be technically more accurate than consensus, because there are some contrarian scientists out there. In my understanding, these contrarian views can be put aside for two reasons - one is that they are VERY marginal voices that have been discredited by widely respected climatologist scientists (i.e. they are like the occasional doctor who continued to say that smoking was not harmful - are there ANY of them left?), two is that some of them have been shown to be funded by Exxon which has a vested interest in denying climate change. So they are not independent voices. There is de facto scientific consensus that human activity is making a significant contribution to the observed increases in global temperature, and that those increases will cause massive global destruction.
2. You didn’t respond to my charge of blacklisting non-believers and heretics. No one ever does. To me, lack of response on this charge is up there with the non-response the panel gave to the caller. It’s swept under the rug. Prove to me that the heretics aren’t persecuted, and we may have reason to come to the table together.
Yep, I missed that charge. I haven’t seen it happening. I suspect that people who deny strong evidence about anything tend to find themselves marginalised. Like the historian who denies the Holocaust.
3. Organizationally, the community of believers looks to be more like a single, non-reproducing amoeba, than it does an emanating group of concentric circles. The former looks like it’s growing because it changes shape, but really doesn’t grow. The latter grows, and its growth is obvious because you have an origin from which you can measure the growth. a) IPCC members have left the GW table over everything from differences of outcome to differences of approach to disagreements about the use of political strong-arming. b) A significant number of scientists that signed the UN report on global warming are not meteorologists or climatologists. That’s like me, as a project manager, signing onto a report on electrical engineering. Here, the community of believers is continually redefined to make it look like we have majority of opinion.
‘Community of believers’ is a nonsense term when applied to climate change. I guess you’d call those who support immunisation a ‘community of believers’ too. All I would say, is look at the evidence, recognise that this is not a matter of ‘believing’ - the sky is blue whether you believe it or not. Regarding growth patterns, amoebic or concentric, I suspect that given the complexity of human behaviour, concentric growth of anything doesn’t happen in any field (other than a planned city like Canberra!!). Growth patterns are always irregular and that can make it hard to see that growth is actually happening.
4. Many businesses and industry leaders fail – and bring down their entire enterprise - because they say “we believe it’s true, so we HAVE to do it”. Good people are martyred for having different opinions and approaches, even if they agree with the premise. I’ve been on the wrong side of this by-product of groupthink a number of times. I’m used to it. People become blinded when they are in the “in” group, and regularly lead their projects or movements to dismal failure.
Yep, it is clear you don’t accept the evidence for climate change. Perhaps you should check out ‘Realclimate.com’ - they have a handy list of 25 myths about climate change and they show the evidence why each myth IS a myth.
In group / out group isn’t the most helpful approach for me, though I am enjoying being an ‘early adopter’ as my petrol bills are 1/3 those of my neighbours! It isn’t ‘groupthink’ when there is solid evidence for the majority view.
This forum could be an opportunity to discuss some of the positions people take on specific climate change issues. Or some of the questions you come across as you explore the topic.
Sorry to see the the irritation emerging… will that always defeat us?
June 22nd, 2007 21:58
Hello all,
Well, I go for a bike ride and all heck breaks loose. I wrote the following before seeing the most recent exchange between Rick, Brian and Gillian, but it still represents why I wrote the post and I don’t think it yells at anybody. So, for what it’s worth:
Hello all and thanks to the responses to the post,
Given what folks have written, I want to clarify what I THINK was the problem with the broadcast I heard.
1. I do not believe that the panel members and questioner were in any disagreement concerning the existence of global warming. They all started from the premise that this is a fact of our current and future environment. We live in a world that is getting warmer and will continue to so (at least) for some time to come. The scientific consensus on this fact is simply overwhelming. The list of national and international science organizations that have taken this position is both long and impressive. These include, but are not limited to:
1. World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations
2. National Academy of Sciences
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science
4. The American Meteorological Society
5. The American Geophysical Union
source: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
As a side note I think it is important to note that the public and political debate has meaningfully shifted over the last 10 years or so to reflect this position. Those who cry, “The whole thing is crock” cooked up by some sort of “conspiracy” are now few and far between. Science can get out to the public, and the public will listen.
2. There IS still meaningful debate concerning the causes of this planetary warming. Reputable European scientists have recently argued that solar radiation and not greenhouse gasses (human produced or otherwise) may be the primary cause of the current warming process. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml)
I would encourage folks to read the coverage in this British newspaper article. It’s enlightening for several reasons. First, I think is shows that we are quite able to hear about different theories of climate change. These do not seem to be suppressed (or at least not well).
The comments of several scientists on this research are also enlightening. For the most part they demonstrate reasoned questioning of the findings, coupled with qualified acceptance of the importance of solar radiation as (at least) one factor in the current global warming process. The authors of the report are treated with the respect common to the scientific community. The major exception to this is the opinion of a single individual named David Bellamy who clearly shoots from the hip.
Last, I hate the title. It’s exactly the sort of simplistic sensationalist crap we need to avoid.
3. My concern in writing the post was not to question the import of global warming. Nor was it to present the argument that we should do nothing, ride it out and hope for the best. I am personally convinced of the import of the problem of global warming and am concerned that we put the resources we have available to the best use in addressing this problem. My question (and I think that of the questioner on the program), is how to best use those resources?
The value of a conservative position on this issue (or any other) is to put the brakes on “change for change’s sake”. Before we spend enormous time and effort to combat ANY problem, we should first be as sure as we can that our efforts will yield meaningful results.
Another side note-I think reducing carbon emissions has political implications well beyond climate that I think make doing so important regardless of climate, but that’s another post.
The following are the questions I would like answered and was deeply disturbed that a panel of experts on a reputable news show ducked and avoided. I would have accepted “we don’t know” or “here’s what we do know and it’s not enough” but not ducking and ignoring a valuable and well-presented question. I was especially annoyed that the moderator of the discussion let the panel members slide on this.
-Can we have a significant enough impact on carbon emissions in the time we likely have to alter the outcome to a significant degree?
-What is the impact of the human activity that contributes to global warming?
-Should we be spending more time and effort to prepare effectively to live in an altered ecology that we largely cannot avoid? My (potential) proposal is for effective preparation, not intentional blindness. Should we be planning for what happens to the Florida Keys or to lower parts of major costal cities? Or something else?
June 23rd, 2007 00:22
Grant,
Here are my answers to your questions based on my limited understanding. I agree the experts should have given better responses, but I will also repeat Gillian’s reference of Real Climate. It is managed and written by climate experts, and focuses on the scientific findings, not politics or speculation. It is the best, most honest source of scientific information I know of.
-Can we have a significant enough impact on carbon emissions in the time we likely have to alter the outcome to a significant degree?
Yes. The real question though is how significantly do we have to change vs. how serious are the consequences. Our biggest problem right now is that we choose to do nothing, which means when we finally do get around to making changes they are going to hurt more.
-What is the impact of the human activity that contributes to global warming?
Significant. Every indication is that human produced carbon dioxide is the primary driving force of global warming. Other factors, such as solar activity, do contribute, but they pale in comparison to the human impact.
-Should we be spending more time and effort to prepare effectively to live in an altered ecology that we largely cannot avoid? My (potential) proposal is for effective preparation, not intentional blindness. Should we be planning for what happens to the Florida Keys or to lower parts of major costal cities? Or something else?
Yes. No matter what we do, there will be some serious consequences. (Islander Diaspora, for example). In general we should plan for the full range of consequences, from bad to worst. As we learn more, we can develop and implement plans accordingly.
The important thing to remember is that addressing global warming doesn’t mean we all have to revert to wearing hair shirts and living in caves. We can maintain a good quality of life. What it means is that we may have to spend serious money on technology and research. But we’ve done that before (highway system, the Internet, the Apollo program) and they always provide benefits well beyond their initial intent. It also means that our lives will change. More importantly, the quality of life for our children and grandchildren are directly dependent on what we choose.
June 23rd, 2007 11:45
Hi Grant and Group-
I read your post and the comments and then re-read the entire thread again. I’m wondering if anyone actually knows what was said or who the panel members were. I wonder if this isn’t a problem.
Grant, you posted a paraphrase, (as well as giving the site to listen to the whole conversation) and then expressed your concern over your own perceptions. Gillian then states her concern for the cause and the need for action, followed closely by Rick’s… contributions, and Brian’s… response.
But the entire thing began with an expectation that a group of scientists gathered by NPR, experts in very specific fields, would somehow rouse themselves up and, in real-time, generate meaningful solutions to complex eco-poitical issues. These guys were experts in very specific fields; “Glaciers, perma frost, and sea-ice” were three of the specialities listed for three of the five scientists. One said “As scientists, we look at the individual parts. As people , we are affected by the whole.” When the question about Big Picture policy was asked, maybe they froze up, and maybe they tried to not sound foolish, or maybe they decided to use the air time to reiterate their information, (which was important). It might have made me unhappy too, but it may also be important to allow everyone some limitations.
Growing up Roman Catholic, and working now with people of may spiritual paths, I have seen the tendency of people to assume that someone who is spiritually wise or religiously educated can successfully and correctly comment on any question. Priests and ministers often comment on issues outside their purview. At extreme levels, we get the fanatical imams and ayatollahs calling for the deaths of leaders of foreign countries…oh, wait, that was Reverend Pat Robertson! My mistake.
But to my point. (Yes I think I have one…) Let’s not do to scientists what we’ve done to ministers and priests. (For one thing, I never want to see a show called the 3.14 Club with some big-haired scientist expressing the uncertainty principle by saying “Send us your money to fund research, it will arrive by snal-mail or by electronic deposit, or maybe by BOTH at the Same Time!” (Oh my…too much coffee) Let scientists answer questions in their areas, but let’s not look to science for policy. That is the realm of politics. and it goes to your post about people being too good for politics. We need thinkers and people of deliberate action in politics. They will not be perfect, and neither will our scientists. But, together, we may find our way through. And while we are wondering what is the best thing to do, I think it does behoove us to be doing Something now. Go to Gillian’s post about Seven Principles for some ideas, and to Brian’s last note for reasoned and guardedly optimistic thoughts on how to proceed.
(Yes Brian, that was *you* being referred to as optimistic. Must be post-Solsticial effusions…)
Ramblingly-
Nick
June 23rd, 2007 18:23
Grant,
If I understand your original frustration, you were upset that a panel of scientist did not answer a question proposed to them asking basically, “are we sure that we are causing global warming, and are you sure that there is anything we can do about it.” First the qualifier about “limited knowledge” is wrong. The concepts involved with global warming are deep and difficult, but there are certainly people who have that understanding.
I recently was talking to a friend and scientist back from the south pole. I was playing devil advocate to see how he answers people when they ask him the, “we know the Ice age occurred, how do we know this isn’t just part of the cycle.” He said he usually doesn’t answer the question. The reason is because the answer is too long for most people to sit through. The short answer is “yes we are in a cycle”. But as you can see the danger of that is that the opposition and people looking to continue their destructive behaviors will pounce on that comment and recite it out of context until it becomes biblical.
The earth goes through cycles that last 23,000 years. A decent description can be found here. As my friend pointed out, his trips to “the Ice” and other areas has shown that the effects that normally take hundreds of years have occurred in the course of a decade. Even if we had the ability to turn off the greenhouse switch, some humans will still have to adapt.
So when presented with that question, you can spend the whole show explaining just one of the concepts required to understand global warming. A scientist could say the short answer of “yes” there is going to be some adaptation required and risk being misquoted and out of contexted. Or they can blow it off, and hope that they can express ideas to correct the problem. Have you ever tried to sit through a two hour discussion on global warming? Luckily, anybody reading this interested in a decent attempt to explain it in layman’s terms could try here. here.
June 24th, 2007 06:54
Abraham Lincoln said words to the effect that if I had six hours to cut down a tree I’d spend four sharpening the axe. Before a scientist can answer a question they might be expected to go sharpen their metophorical axes. I can understand why they possibly did not give an answer.
As Lord of Logic points to a faster than before ice melt, this might be to our benifit. Aren’t we in an interglacial period of the current ice age cycle? If we reduce carbon emissions will we go along the natural path into a glacial period? If we do buck the glacial period trend, true some areas of the world would go under, but then some icebound regions will become habitable, World history is littered with vast migrations of humans and other animals.
I would pose a question, should the world of humans grow up, and cooperate? Ops now I’m going into a dreamlike state, where arms manufacturers are building wind turbines, oh bliss
A last point we should always be prepared to adapt, we have ample evidence of what happens to speieces that have been unable to do so. The question is are we willing to? Adaptability of humans would make an interesting subject for discussion. You need your specialists but you also need those who can use/adapt apply knowledge and bridge gaps between the specialist and the public.
July 9th, 2007 16:17
For anyone who is interested, Rick has written about his comments here, and my response on his website. I’ve responded to his comments, and if anyone else is interested, give his site a look. He makes a few good points.
July 11th, 2007 08:11
just wanted to say great post, great discussion, some flaws, but at least we are brave humans.