According to an Associated Press Science writer,
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Now it is a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid.Since Clinton's inauguration, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton's second inauguration. Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it.
"The time for delay is over; the time for denial is over," [President Elect Obama] said . . .[on 14 December] after meeting with former Vice President Al Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming. "We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now that this is a matter of urgency and national security and it has to be dealt with in a serious way."
I reject the notion, conceivably implicit in the article, that it is all former President Clinton's fault. His carbon dioxide and methane emissions were, on a global scale, minuscule. The Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy leads only to muddled analysis; indeed, nothing former President Clinton may have done in the Oval Office could have contributed even slightly to the present horrific Global Warming mess. We must all share the blame, and behave accordingly. If no action is taken promptly, not only the Earth is damned; even innocent Mars may be seriously at risk; so may be all of the other planets in our solar system; yea, perhaps even the entire Universe. Issue must be taken, respectfully, with President Elect Obama's assertion that
Because the truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources — it's about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.
While doubtless well meaning, MMGW (Man Made Global Warming, not the far less threatening Murdering Muddler George W.) is too important for reflection and delay. Fortunately, President Elect Obama's new science advisers are on the ball.
Colleagues say the post is well-suited for Holdren, who at Harvard went from battling the spread of nuclear weapons to tackling the threat of global warming. He's an award-laden scientist comfortable in many different fields.
We can only hope that Mr. Holden is as successful in combating the threat of MMGW as has been the case in combating the threat of nuclear proliferation; MMGW is far more threatening.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ruvy
Dan,
An interesting read. One of the problems that science shares with the society around it is that ideas come and go, and as they do the "proof" behind them often goes "poof". Once upon a time, the universe was held to be in a steady state, having existed forever. Now it is acknowledged to have had a beginning, even if the identity of the Beginner is yet under dispute, and even if the idea that the beginning was actually The Beginning is disputed as well.
For many years, scientists did not dispute the slow evolution posited by Darwin. Indeed proof that the slow evolution concept of Darwin was not necessarily true sat languishing in a scientist's drawer for decades. He feared to release it, lest he lose his sinecure.
So the "Church of Global Warming", and its pope both deserve careful scrutiny.
Having said all of this, there is the concept of "global dimming" of the sun's light that explains why many of the predicted effects of global warming have not occurred. If partial efforts are made at cleaning the air, such that the sun's light comes in even more strongly than it does now, many of these predicted effects of global warming do show themselves. Europe's increasingly erratic weather can be blamed on the partial clearing of air pollutants which increase the sun's light over Europe.
All in all, Dan, while "Global Warming" is and has been a good cash cow (cows and their flatulence, by the way, supposedly increase the pollution of the air), it may actually be true - but mitigated by other forms of pollution which are generally off the popular radar - like jet fuel that cuts the amount of light reaching the planet. In looking at global pollution, one needs a truly global view - in the most catholic sense of the word - and people are generally incapable of such broad vision.
2 - Dr Dreadful
Well written, as usual, Dan, although your satire rather hangs on there actually being a pervasive quasi-religious fanaticism regarding global warming in the politico-scientific community (now there's a tortured sentence I never thought I'd have call to write).
Beware men of straw.
3 - Dan(Miller)
Also tin men and cowardly lions.
Dan(Miller)
4 - Glenn Contrarian
Ruvy and all the other global-warming-deniers, a variation on "Pascal's wager":
If we do all we can to mitigate global warming, and the whole thing turns out to be a hoax on the grandest scale, yes, there will be a lot of economic damage, and America will suffer somewhat economically.
But if we do NOT tackle the global-warming problem, and the whole thing turns out to be true, THEN what?
In other words, you're willing to gamble modern human civilization just to 'protect the American economy'.
5 - Ruvy
Glenn,
Read the last two paragraphs of my comment again, please. You will see that I do not really doubt global warming at all. Google up "global dimming" and you will see why global warming seems so problematic.
I do appreciate Dan's satire though on the new orthodoxy - it stands - along with the many mistakes that scientists make trying to get it right - as warning that the boys in the lab coats may not quite have it down like they think they do.
6 - Dan(Miller)
Glen,
If you will re-read my non-satirical postscript, you may find that I do not deny either that there has from time to time been global warming or that human activity may have caused an indeterminate amount of it. What I find offensive is the notion, espoused with religious fervor, that MMGW definitely exists, that if steps are not taken immediately to check it there will be horrific consequences, that carbon dioxide (and probably methane) emissions are clearly the primary cause of climate change, that anyone who contends otherwise is being silly or worse, and that the debate is over.
As noted, cleaning up the environment is a good thing; it is rather a mess in many respects. It would also be a good thing to solve lots of other problems: cancer, poverty, starvation, unemployment, nuclear bombs, land mines, war, illiteracy, racism, tribal conflict, piracy, etc etc etc. Choices have to be made, and every one of them requires the expenditure of scarce resources; they are, to that extent, mutually exclusive.
Often, the law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head. Surely you remember all the furor over DDT, and the at least modestly heroic efforts to eliminate it and the deaths it was thought to cause; DDT probably did cause many deaths. Unfortunately, many more deaths seem to have resulted from the resurgence of insect borne diseases, such as malaria, than were caused by spraying with DDT.
I take a skeptical view of the claims by Former Vice President Gore and others, now seemingly accepted by President Elect Obama, that the MMGW problem is "the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately." You spent a long time in the Navy. Was promoting hysteria a useful way to attain good results?
I submit that MMGW is not tantamount to a five alarm fire, and (as noted in the article) the world seems to have got cooler rather than warmer over the past three years. Let's take a deep breath, consider what alternatives there are and which would be the most productive expenditures of resources. Assuming that there is a major MMGW problem which must be addressed promptly, it might also be useful to determine with more certainty what the root causes actually are, so that they can be addressed most effectively. That is unlikely to happen if the debate is declared over.
Finally, you claim that I am willing to gamble modern human civilization just to 'protect the American economy. Even leaving aside the probability that the economy is a major part of modern human civilization, it seems that any adverse impact on the U.S. economy would "trickle down" very noticeably to most other economies, even if (as seems unlikely) the U.S. were the only country to take action.
Dan(Miller)
7 - Dan(Miller)
Ruvy, you say and I agree,
The problem is that when science ceases to be scientific and becomes result-driven, the "may" becomes even more problematical.Here is one example of this sort of thing. In April of 2007, a Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Technical Report was released. The Summary purported to "summarize" the IPCC Report released in half a year later, in November of 2007. One of the authors of the "summary," Stephen Schneider, spoke with refreshing candor about science and the need for media attention in October of 1989 According to the linked Canada Free Press article, the "summary" was consistent with this position, although less so with the November 2007 Assessment Report. Effectiveness in promoting an agenda can be misleading, particularly when the desire for effectiveness overpowers the desire for objectivity, and even more so when the underlying document itself is based on a result-driven analysis.
The Assessment Report is highly technical and is not light reading. It is not the stuff of media reports, so a summary was probably necessary. A summary based more on the desire for objectivity, and less on the desire for "effectiveness" in promoting an agenda, would have been better. As it is, reliance upon the "summary" by the media and hence by the rest of us -- particularly policy makers -- is misplaced. Result-driven "scientific" studies and unfortunately successful efforts to grab media attention do not make for reliable "science."
As Ruvy also observes, the boys in the lab coats may not quite have it down like they think they do. Back in 1971, Mr. Schneider co-authored a "scientific" report the conclusion of which was as follows: Apparently, the same sorts of pollution now credited with causing cataclysmic global warming were then credited with causing cataclysmic global cooling, and an ice age.
Dan(Miller)
8 - Ruvy
Dan,
That is why I pointed out the global dimming business. The climatic predictions of raising temperatures should be coming true - and are not. This means one of two things. Either the predictions are flat out wrong, or some factor has not been properly considered.
Global dimming deals with a factor that most of the boys in white lab coats have failed to consider, and in addition deals with one of the very few benefits to emerge from the Arab attack on the World Trade Center - the downing of all planes flying over the United States for three days, and the resulting clearing of the air of residual jet fuel pollution.
Pollution is real, and its effects are real - and are a whole hell of a lot more complex than most of us are able to comprehend. I'm making a prediction here, and I believe it will come to pass. Judaism has a concept called tikkún ha'olám - repair of the world. That concept will mean, in large part, the cleanup of the awful mess Man has made of this planet. There is an awful lot we have to answer for in our faulty stewardship of the earth and our mis-exploitation of it.
9 - Cindy D
Glenn,
In other words, you're willing to gamble modern human civilization just to 'protect the American economy'.
Why stop now?
BTW Glenn, I have been researching a lot about the wars waged for years against the third world population and against democracy by our own CIA etc.
Remember your position that we are the watch dog of Democracy? It will be difficult to uphold that myth when I demonstrate that we have been crushing democracy all over the globe in order to make way for western multinational corporations to exploit people everywhere.
Really, we don't need the military you proposed we did. The entire world would be safer (and more liberated and free) without our "help".
10 - Nelson
Come along little children and drink of thy holy cool aid and be free! Global warming is quack science at best. I remember the next Ice age forcast a few years back. Look outside, nobody knows nothing!
11 - zingzing
ahh, nelson... haaa-haaa.
joke's on us all.
12 - jamminsue
Dan,you say: Regardless of whether global warming is occurring, and regardless of its causes, it makes sense to clean up the environment for lots of other reasons.
This is a sane and excellent point of view. There's a reason our mothers told us to clean up after ourselves when we were children. Now humanity needs to listen to mom.
Happy Holidays!
13 - Dan(Miller)
Thanks, jamminsue
Dan(Miller)
14 - pablo
Cindy 9
"
Remember your position that we are the watch dog of Democracy? It will be difficult to uphold that myth when I demonstrate that we have been crushing democracy all over the globe in order to make way for western multinational corporations to exploit people everywhere."
Don't let Nalle see this! hehehehehe. Nice post Cindy.
15 - Glenn Contrarian
Pablo -
Heard on KPTK, a local radio station, on the message that America's invasion of Iraq sends to other nations: "Be nice, or we'll bring democracy to you, too!"
16 - Dave Nalle
As I've said before, promoting democracy makes no sense and has mostly not been what we're doing. It's like trying to sell someone cable when they don't have a TV yet.
Traditionally what we've done best exporting is capitalism, which lays the groundwork for eventual development of democracy.
Dave
17 - pablo
[Entire comment deleted by Comments Editor. Pablo, engage with the ideas not the personalities. Thanks.]
18 - Dan(Miller)
Glen,
That might scare the Hell out of some of them -- Venezuela, Cuba, China, North Korea, etc.-- if it were a creditable threat; which it wouldn't be.
Dan(Miller)
19 - Christopher Rose
Dave, now you've confused me. Exporting capitalism? Where on this Earth has the USA done that? Most places have been practising that since before the existence of the USA.
20 - Ruvy
I see you guys have managed to slide away from talking about pollution, global warming and all the issues associated therewith. Shit stinks too bad, eh?
Heh! Why am I not surprised?
Truth of the matter is, kids, that cleaning up the shit that Man has left here is one of the very few problems that are amenable to being solved to some degree on a blog site.
Capitalism, democracies, foreign invasions and the like make great bar discussions, but nothing aside from pissing in the bar's toilet ever gets done....
Carry on!
21 - Dan(Miller)
Ruvy,
Although I have written two articles about MMGW, I must confess that it primarily interests two groups of people: those who believe that (other?) people are primarily responsible for global warming, and those who suspect that MMGW is a fraud. Nobody else seems to care much, one way or the other. Unfortunate, perhaps, but pretty common.
Dan(Miller)
22 - Baronius
Dan - Interesting comment. That got me thinking (and I'm going off the top of my head here) that it's similar to abortion. If you really stop and think about global warming, and you believe it, you can't be half-heartedly against it. It means that millions of people are going to die. You'd have to be inhuman to approach that idea calmly. Similarly, abortion, if you think about it, is either a necessary option or a holocaust. So most people feel a little weird about it, but don't think about it much. Those that do become militant.
I guess I'm saying that global warming isn't approached as a religion, but with the fervor appropriate to a looming catastrophe - which is right, unless it's wrong.
23 - Glenn Contrarian
Dan -
The 'exporting democracy via invasion' comment was meant sardonically and is more of an indictment against the Bush administration than anything else.
24 - Dan(Miller)
Baronius,
I like the analogy, but have some difficulties with it. Those who insist that drastic steps be taken to curb MMGW rely on science (or quasi-science, depending on one's view) to support the theses that it is happening and, as you say, that millions of people are going to die because of it. Those who argue that human activity is not a primary cause of whatever global warming there may be rely on science (or quasi-science, depending on one's view) to support the thesis that it is not happening or that man's activities are an insignificant cause. Were it clear that millions would die due to MMGW were drastic action not taken immediately, I do not think that many of the "MMGW deniers" would consider this result acceptable. By the same token, were it clear that bad things will not result from global warming, or that man is not a significant cause of it, I don't think that many proponents of drastic actions would be interested in taking those actions.
On the other hand, those who vigorously oppose abortion do not rely on science (or quasi-science) for the proposition that it terminates either life or the potential for life; there is no need for science to show that; it is a given. Those who favor freedom of choice in the abortion arena equally recognize (without the aid of science) that it terminates either life or the potential for life. Presumably, they have made the value judgment that freedom of choice is more important and that the State therefore should not interfere. The same could be said in the context of assisted suicide.
Judgments about whether abortion should be permitted seem to be based on moral or religious perceptions; judgments about whether and to what extent MMGW is occurring, and the consequences, seem to be based on scientific analysis, distorted in one direction or another to comport with ideological beliefs or other notions which seem to me to be quasi-religious in nature.
As to MMGW, it strikes me that the cart has been placed squarely before the horse; we would all be better off if the science of it were not distorted by moral or ideological views. Then, the debate (if any) about what (if anything) should be done about it could focus on the moral or ideological aspects. I suspect that there would be substantially less debate were this to happen.
Dan(Miller)
25 - Dan(Miller)
Glen,
I recognized that; I was just being snotty. The Devil made me do it.
Dan(Miller)