This past Sunday's 60 Minutes segment on global warming was okay for what it was: An attempt to cram decades of steadily accumulated research and analysis into 15 or so minutes of television, with a lengthy digression to watch researchers shoot a polar bear with a trank-dart, which was apparently included for no other reason than the fact that it's so frickin' cool to be able to manhandle such a hugely dangerous animal and not have to worry about getting turned into steak tartare.
One of the talking heads even earned himself a lifetime achievement award for graciousness by saying that global-warming skeptics had performed a service by making researchers hone and clarify their scientific methodology — as opposed to saying, less politely but more accurately, that the only people left to doubt climate change are either irresponsible cranks or paid shills in the employ of right-wing think tanks and the petrochemical industry.
A whole separate 60 Minutes segment could be devoted to fake controversies about the reality of global warming, and it could have no better lead-in than the weekend's news that King Dubya, whose administration's policy of ignoring or distorting real science brings to mind Stalin's ruinous embrace of Lysenkoism, actually met with pop sci-fi novelist Michael Crichton to talk about global warming. Since Crichton's novel State of Fear dismisses all evidence of global warming as the work of Dr. Evil-like conspirators, this is rather like hearing Bush prepped for an audience with the Pope by reading The Da Vinci Code, or geared up for a Middle East peace summit by studying The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (Bush's buddy Pat Robertson could loan him his own well-highlighted copy).
If you think these comparisons are unfair to Crichton — who is, after all, a perfectly entertaining pulp writer when he isn't trying to stand on a tottering soapbox — then head over to the New York Review of Books site and spend some quality time with Ian Buruma's essay on Rising Sun, which compares Crichton's depiction of the Japanese with the descriptions of Jews in a piece of vintage anti-Semitic propaganda. The world is ever changing, but the methods for distorting it never seem to change all that much.
****
Cross-posted at The Opinion Mill.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Matt
Bush did not "consult" with Crichton, he talked to an author he liked. State of Fear may be a fictional story, but it is painstakingly documented and footnoted, much more than any "global warming" study I have seen.
The world warms and cools periodically. There is nothing to fear here, other than those who would impoverish us all for nothing.
Oh, the ice caps on Mars are melting. Mars, with no large CO2 build up. Mars with no human activity.
2 - Phillip Winn
The world is ever changing, but the methods for distorting it never seem to change all that much.
For example, describing ideological opponents as "irresponsible cranks or paid shills" and claiming that they "doubt climate change" -- that's a great way to distort things.
I know of nobody who doubts the fact of climate change. What many people doubt is whether such climate change is natural and cyclical or entirely human-caused or both. Many people question what, if anything, humans can do to reverse or even slow the process.
Many people who aren't irresponsible cranks or paid shills question lots of things related to global climate change, and pretending that the President of the United States forms his opinions solely on the word of a sci-fi writer who "denies" global warming is, well, irresponsibly cranky.
The jab at Pat Robertson is just a cheap shot and utter nonsense. Pat would probably have grounds to sue if he cared.
3 - DJRadiohead
and I'm just asking here... how confident are we really in the temperature measurements we have for the past 100 years? and the years before that?
4 - Deano
Well, color me astonished! I'm more amazed that Bush finally finished reading "My Pet Goat"...
Mark says:
Oh, the ice caps on Mars are melting. Mars, with no large CO2 build up. Mars with no human activity.
Oh my GAWD! Of Course! Mars! Obviously because if Mars...is...well,...sort of melting...then....well... understandably.....um...uh...
What's your point again?
5 - Deano
Sorry my previous comment should read "Matt says". Obvously I've had too much caffine today...or not enough.
6 - Porkopolis
60 Minutes was very selective with their reporting on Paul Mayewski's (the very scientist they interview in the report) research into global warming.
They left out this (http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=868):
"A team led by University of Maine scientists has reported finding a potential link between changes in solar activity and the Earth's climate. In a paper due to be published in an upcoming volume of the Annals of Glaciology, Paul Mayewski, director of UMaine's Climate Change Institute, and 11 colleagues from China, Australia and UMaine describe evidence from ice cores pointing to an association between the waxing and waning of zonal wind strength around Antarctica and a chemical signal of changes in the sun's output...
...Researchers in the UMaine Climate Change Institute (http://www.climatechange.umaine.edu/) have focused on the relationship between solar variability and climate, particularly the use of isotopes in tree rings and ice cores to provide an indication of the sun's strength. The ice core data reported in the paper demonstrates a direct atmospheric consequence associated with changing solar radiation."
For more see: http://porkopolis.blogspot.com/2006/02/60-minutes-on-melting-ice-caps-on.html
7 - zingzing
of course the world's climate changes over time. slowly. but does it ever change this fast? hmm? it's really a question.
8 - Dave Nalle
This fast??? We're in a warming cycle that started 500 years ago. That's not exactly overnight.
Dave
9 - zingzing
uh huh... part of it is natural. part of it is because of humans. if you look at temperature charts for the past few decades, you'll see an exponential (still small, but only getting bigger) jump in the temperature. natural warming is okay. nothing we can do to stop that. but, our economies will suffer (more and more) if we don't do something to stop the human causes of this warming. hell, even if it was 100% natural, it would still be reason to worry.
10 - Dave Nalle
uh huh... part of it is natural. part of it is because of
And you can tell which is which because you have magic glasses?
if you look at temperature charts for the past few decades, you'll see an exponential (still small, but only getting bigger) jump in the temperature.
Do you know what exponential means? It means increasing by an order of magnitude. That would suggest a shift in the last decade from the one degree increase of the last 500 years to a 10 degree increase in 10 years. Now that WOULD be something to be alarmed about, except that it hasn't happened.
There's a reason why scientists have stopped using the term 'global warming' and made a mass migration to 'global climate change', because first off they've failed to prove the role of human agency in global warming - our total carbon emissions in a decade are less than was produced by Krakatoa in one explosion - and the fact is that they don't know that it's actually going to get hotter in the long term, and there's every indication it's getting colder for large portions of the world.
Dave
11 - zingzing
oh fuck it, let's just see what happens. you do nothing, i'll probably sit on my ass too. if you're right, i'm happy.
12 - Steven Hart
Mars? Mars? I post an item in the morning about climate change on Earth and when I get back in the evening you're all talking about Mars. Mars is the red one. Earth is the blue-green one.
Those conservatives who are still confused about what planet they live on can consult this post at Real Climate. The short version is that there is noticeable shrinkage at the Martian South Polar Ice Cap, but this is clearly the result of localized weather patterns, not some all-encompassing change.
Returing to Earth we find some highly debatabed, highly debatable studies on evidence for increased solar irradiation. These are interesting, but the imnplication that this means we should do nothing is a little strange. SHouldn't we strive twice as hard to control the pollution factors that have already been demonstrated to contribute to the greenhouse effect -- the factors that we can control, as opposed to the activity of the sun?
I anxiously await further posts on evidence of warming on Jupiter.
13 - Deano
I must admit, hours later and I'm still giggling over the Mars reference...
14 - Dave Nalle
oh fuck it, let's just see what happens. you do nothing, i'll probably sit on my ass too. if you're right, i'm happy.
Zing, I didn't say I wanted to do nothing. But I want to make sure that there are good reasons for what we do. For example, there's no reason not to move to more fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles as quickly as possible, because in addition to reducing emissions they have economic benefits which can't be ignored.
Dave
15 - Shdwshard
Because of course, Mars is completely unrelated to Earth. The point he was making is that since Mars shares the same solar system, and is also going through a kind of global warming, it might have some correlation. In this case, he's suggesting (I postulate) that increased solar radiation (which has been mentioned many times in this thread, so I don't know why you people don't draw the obvious link here) is causing BOTH Mars and the Earth to warm up.
How much? Who knows. I can't seperate the man made, natural global cycles, heat island effect, and solar radiation inputs from each other, and neither can anyone else. We can guess, but that's about it, and that's really the point Michael Crichton's book makes.
If you read the book (I have, and another poster claims to as well) you'll read a fun fictionalized account of some really over the top environmentalists, intermixed with extremely well documented and referenced skepticism of what's really going on with Global Warming. He provides a lot of evidence through the story, detailing where the uncertainties are, and pointing out the flat out hypocracy involved in some of the environmental reporting.
The most striking fact he points out is that Antarctica has been melting for thousands of years, and only recently has begun ADDING ice! Not only that, it's a hunk of ice larger than all the other hunks of ice in the world put together.
The often reported calving is a peninsula of Antarctica incidently, not the entire friggin continent, as is so often reported. It's like saying the world is sinking into the ocean by looking at the city of New Orleans...
Michael Crichton DOES NOT say that Climate Change isn't happening. He acknowledges it happens and will continue happening. He also doesn't say we shouldn't do anything, but he points out that there's a lot of danger in acting prematurely, without enough information. Yellowstone National Park is his poster case for why not.
16 - Deano
I am, seriously, laughing so hard at this Mars thing I can barely type....
We have (intermittant) Martian weather data (pressure and temperature) going back to 1998 (courtesy of the Mars Global Surveyor), two "weather" stations on Mars (the Rovers) and observational (visual primarily) data of less than a century, little of which is either consistent or applicable for judging weather - Hell we didn't know for sure that Mars even had clouds until about 30 years ago. It has an atmosphere pressure 100 times less than Earth and is 95% CO2.
So as I understand, based on a miniscule iota of weather data, no real evidence and lots of speculative theory, on a handful of educated guesses drawn from the observations of a seasonal ebb and flow of the southern and northern Martian poles (made mainly of dry ice mind you - not water), you think we now know enough to guess that Mars is undergoing natural global warming and thus can conclude that if global warming is happening on Mars, then it must be a natural causal effect here on Earth as well, so human interference isn't a factor?
Is there global warming for Mars? Well, Hell - look at some photos! There is very strong evidence that water once flowed freely on Mars - indicating a thicker and warmer atmosphere at some point or another, so Mars has definitely gone through climatic shifts during its history.
So what? Climates change, this is not news. It has no correlation with whether the impact of human technology, fossil fuels etc. are impacting on Earth's global climate, at least until someone puts an SUV on Mars.
17 - Paul Merrifield
Global warming is 20 years old. Introduced to the UN in 1988, it posed to the world an observation that the earth had been dramatically warming for several years and it’s predictions have been repeated over and over again ever since. 20 years later if their predictions they said back then or since had come true, we would not be able to have the winter Olympics, sell snow tires, enjoy a crisp sunny winter day, fly south to get warm, have snow storms, enjoy the changing of the seasons, pay heating bills all winter, in fact, we would all be swimming in boiling water by now. What was said 20 years ago is identical to today. Perpetuating this mass insanity, is the media. The politicians (Kyoto), scientists, and religious-like environmentalists feed off this mutually beneficial power source while bewildered citizens are numbed with a now growing cynical fear. Only when our frustratingly misunderstood climate is perfect, like the interior of a shopping mall, will this cultural anomaly end.
18 - Dave Nalle
Very pertinent point, Paul, in comparing militant environmentalism to a religion. It's every bit as fanatical as Islam or the right to life movement. It even has its raving mullahs like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and its terrorists like the ELF.
It's kind of weird for me, because while I agree with the basic principles of conservationism and stewarding the earth and all of that good stuff, as a rationalist I find that I cannot accept ideas like global warming if I reject ideas like intelligent design, because they fall into the exact same category of widely and strongly held beliefs lacking the necessary underpinnings of logic which I would like to see.
Dave
19 - Steven Hart
You got me there, Shdwshard -- there's no denying that Earth and Mars are in the same solar system. And I infer from your post that you also agree that both planets revolve around the sun, rather than the sun revolving around the Earth. So you've heard of Copernicus and Galileo. This puts you at least a few centuries ahead of many global-warming skeptics.
The increased ice in Antarctica you reference (and which Crichton cites) can be traced to increased precipitation, which can be traced to increased moisture in the air, which can be traced to increased evaporation, which can be traced to an increase in temperature -- whoops, maybe Michael Crichton shouldn't have been so quick to include that one in his novel.
Or maybe it just doesn;t bother him. After all, when he wrote his novel about sexual harassment -- Disclosure -- he made it into a case of a man being harassed by a woman.
Here's hoping Crichton never takes an interest in lynching, or we'll see some historical novel in which mobs of black people string up helpless white travelers and then take photographs to sell as postcards.
20 - Phillip Winn
Stephen, you *could* -- just a thought -- actually acknowledge that your article made false assertions on a number of counts, such as the idea that Chricton denies global warming. You *could* acknowledge that few things are known with the fervor you know them, and that while overall warming *may*, or even *probably* is causing the largest increase in ice in recorded history, it isn't *known* for sure. Science is about hypotheses, is it not?
When do we jump directly from hypothesis to known fact without testing or any lapse in time? When discussing environmental science, of course!
For all of the mockey that the reference to Mars has gotten, the point remains that we do not know to what extent globabl climate change is human-caused and to what extent it is part of the natural cyclical pattern. Mars is one small data point suggesting that perhaps Sol is causing a certain measure of warming in the solar system right now. We can laugh and ignore any data that don't fit our preconceptions, but then how does that make us any different from the people we mock?
It doesn't. Religious fervor abounds.
21 - Phillip Winn
Sorry, I meant Steven.
22 - Chromatius
"much more than any "global warming" study I have seen"
Seen but not read?
23 - deano
Actually Paul the theoretical base behind "global warming" is much more than 20 years old, it didn't "begin" when it was introduced at the UN.
Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish chemist postulated the first connection between atmospheric CO2 levels and climate impact in 1896.
The global warming theory isn't "new" or out of left-field, it has been kicking around in various recognizable formats since the late 60's, as scientists batted it back and forth over various issues such as the impact of aerosols ("causing cooling?"), deforestation ("increasing albedo" (that's the reflectivity of a surface i.e. how much sunlight gets reflected back to space instead of being trapped by the atmosphere) - also potentially "causing cooling"), the additional impact of CFC's etc.
What began to emerge in the 1980's, culminating in the UN, was the general international recognition that the problem exists and might have a serious impact on populations, global security and welfare.
24 - zingzing
dave nalle: "Zing, I didn't say I wanted to do nothing. But I want to make sure that there are good reasons for what we do. For example, there's no reason not to move to more fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles as quickly as possible, because in addition to reducing emissions they have economic benefits which can't be ignored."
first, why does everyone call me zing? it's zingzing. i don't know why. second, good for you on the alternative fuels thing. it's strange to agree with you. feels good as well as strange. (sometimes, i get the feeling that you are much smarter than me, and sometimes i get the feeling that you are the smartest dumbass i talk to. sometimes, that would be an insult, sometimes not.) but, third, why would we need a "good reason" to decrease pollution? why not just do it? why do we have to have pollution indexes in the paper everyday? why is it that somedays, people can't go outside in big cities? if not for the possibility of global warming, why don't we do it so we can see the sky during the day? so there isn't a green cloud around our cities? so the trees on the mountains don't melt? (i'm imagining that scene from robocop, where the guy is all like, "help me..." and then gets hit by a speeding car... don't... know... why...)
25 - td
I agree with Dave.
Until the 'theory' is proven our transition to a clean society should progress as alternative solutions are developed that are cost competitive. It doesn't make any sense to subsidize transitions to clean technologies if it costs 2-3 times the current technology.
That said there are plenty of ways government can provide incentives for clean technology research and investment through tax credits and funding to clean sciences. And i'm all for that. But more so because of the economic and forieng policy benefits it would provide us long-term if we reduced our oil dependancy.
I read State of Fear. It's pretty obvious that the author of the article has not. The majority of the critisism Crighton delivered was targeted not at the science, but at the system in which science is produced and presented to the public. A system that because of it's faults, leaves the door open to the critisism that undermines the effort to make people aware of real environmental problems.