June 2006 Archives

Stossel began his career as a consumer reporter. In this position, he recounted, he was constantly approached by alarmists trying to sell scare stories. The incentives for scare stories in the media are tremendous. Scientists have an incentive to raise scares if they want to get on TV. (If they don't raise a scare, they get to stay in their labs, in anonymity, doing important work.) "More of you will watch" if a story is scary. Moreover, many alarmists are terribly convincing -- and make for good television -- and it often leads to terrible policy.

Stossel said the history of environmental scares and alarmist reporting (some of which he had done himself at one point) has made him skeptical of global warming claims. But it's become a major issue today. Stossel said he is afraid that global warming has become the vehicle for those who want to increase government power. He showed a graph of federal spending since 1789 that looked suspiciously like the infamous hockey stick.

Senator Schumer is proposing a "Manhattan Project" to solve energy problems. Stossel said he asked Schumer had not this been tried before in the wasteful Synfuels project. Schumer acknowledged that failure, but said it was because politicians decided how the money was spent -- and this time the decisions would be made by scientists. "Sure they will," Stossel said -- and even if they are it will be the politicized scientists, not those who are disinterested.

Stossel eventually got tired of alarmist reporting on consumer scares when some of the stories did not add up – noting one story in particular pitched by a plaintiffs attorney. "There's an evil relationship between investigative reporters and the trial bar." Its very difficult for reporters to resist because the plaintiffs attorneys do all the research and hand over a packaged story. Stossel pitched stories on "real" risks to the network, but was unable to make them until he received an offer from another network -- which led to his prime time specials, beginning with "Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death?"

Stossel recounted some of the risk data from the special -- noting that the greatest risks people face come from driving, smoking (for those who smoke), and lower incomes. "Wealthier is healthier," Stossel said (quoting Aaron Wildavsky). This means that when the media trumpets minor risks that lead to the wasting of public resources, we are all made less safe. Even terrorism is a relatively minor threat -- killing a fraction of the number of Americans that die from house fires and the like.

Stossel asked the audience whether people would accept an alternative fuel that is odorless, colorless, poisonous, and explosive, and is pumped into people's homes. A few said this would scare them, and that at least a risk assessment would need to be conducted first -- and that if this fuel killed 20 Americans a year the benefits would have to be enormous. Of course, we already allow this -- it's natural gas, and it kills 400 people a year. Yet we allow this risk, Stossel noted, because it is old and familiar. But he wondered whether natural gas -- or other dangerous products -- could be approved today. In the end, Stossel said, we need to be skeptical of scare stories, including global warming.

« Close It

The body of Crichton's talk focused on the harm to scientific inquiry and the public welfare caused by the commercialization of genetic research. For instance, Crichton discussed the case of John Moore, whose cells were taken surreptitiously to be patented by UCLA. Crichton said this story is symptomatic of the larger trend in academic biology of pursuing the commercialization of biological products, pushing universities in to the commercial drug-testing business subsidized by the federal government. Taxpayers are effectively subsidizing university research that enriches universities and academic researchers when it leads to the development of private pharmaceuticals.

The problem today is that most genetic research today is done in secret and for profit, Crichton said. As a result, there are few disinterested scientists to engage in public discussions about important scientific questions. As a result, he said, our technology-dependent society lacks impartial advisors to provide perspective and insight.

"Where were the skeptics" during this transformation of science, Crichton asked. Why were there not skeptical voices raised within the scientific community? Genetic research continues apace, genetic information is collected and commercialized, and there is little oversight or quality control. The human genome was sequenced in 2004, and already 20 percent of the genome is privately owned.

"Meanwhile we are racing toward a true revolution in human existence" - the ability to engage in human modification, Crichton warned. "Nothing stands in our way," just as nothing stood in the way of the rise of eugenics and sterilization, nothing stands in the way of apocalyptic projections of a carbon crisis. When large mass movements arise, skeptics seems to disappear, Crichton said. Sterilization should have been discredited after the fall of Nazi Germany (if not before), yet the state of California did not discontinue its sterilization program until 1964 – at which point thousands had been sterilized.

Why is this? Crichton wondered. Is it due to the mass media? A genetic predisposition for group think? Whatever the reason, it is a problem because we need skeptics. When there is a mass movement we are told "there is no debate; there is a consensus" -- yet "there is a debate about everything." Debate is "a permanent condition of mankind."

"To say there is no debate ought to be a danger sign" because it does not mean there is no debate, but that people wish to shut off opposition, or those who would question are no longer willing to raise their voices. "The fact is that skeptics have failed in the past." They lost their nerve, their funding, or their willingness to question, Crichton said "and we need them especially when debate seems to end."

Needless to say there were lots of questions for Crichton. One questioner, a Russian immigrant, challenged Crichton on his opposition to commercialization. She grew up in a society of "pure science" - the Soviet Union - all science was government funded, and the system yielded Lysenkoism and lack of productive research. In response Crichton seemed to backtrack a bit, saying he did not oppose all private funding of research, but rather was concerned about the lack of balance and increased commercialization of science.

Asked if he received any corporate money -- as some environmentalist critics have alleged -- Crichton seemed amused and said clearly that he "is not paid." He also shared some of the other conspiratorial theories about why he wrote his book, including the hypothesis that he was asked to write the book by Karl Rove ("if I wouldn't write a book for Stephen Spielberg, why would I write a book for someone I've never met?").

Someone asked the obvious question: Isn't there some point when debate should shift, if not end? Are there not some questions, perhaps such as the existence of evolution, that should be beyond debate? Not really, was Crichton's response. "If people want to continue to debate evolution, it's okay with me. I'm tired of it." Crichton added that he believes in evolution -- not "anything else" -- but he would like to see observational documentation of speciation.

Asked about how his views of global warming have evolved in the past few years, Crichton spoke about what led him to write State of Fear. When looking into climate changes, he noticed that all future projections were based upon computer models, and that such models were not sufficiently compelling to him. Crichton noted that what is in dispute is not whether the globe has warmed, whether human activity has increased carbon dioxide levels, whether carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, or whether increased concentrations of greenhouse gases should cause future warming. Rather the relevant question is how much warming will occur. The issue is the climate's sensitivity anthropogenic forcing, and what that means.

Crichton insisted he was not comparing eugenics to global warming -- in his talk or writings -- but he does think the history of eugenics is important. A century ago societal elites believed in eugenics and believed it was grounded in science, and it led to mass sterilization and other injustice. "If it happened once, who is to say it cannot happen again?"

All the bloggers reading would be happy to know that Crichton suggested that blogs may be part of the answer to the problem of mass movements and group think. "The new media replaces the old media," and Crichton suggested this is a good thing, as blogs can question authority and blogging can have significant effects.

Another questioner suggested that part of the problem is the lack of democracy within universities, and the lack of faculty power over university decisions, including those related to commercialization. Crichton seemed to agree, but he did not know what to do about it. "My job is to complain and let other people solve the problem."

Crichton pointed out that people are increasingly isolated from those with opposing views and have a hard time understanding those with different worldviews. The tendency is to demonize those with whom one disagrees, rather than to try and understand their point of view and appreciate differences of opinion. Crichton said he doesn't talk about climate anymore because it has become a "spiritual issue" - as evidenced by the increased involvement of religious organizations in the issue It's now a matter of belief and not of rational discussion, Crichton said, "so I'm done."

« Close It

MacCready believes that basic battery-powered electric vehicles make more sense than fuel cell vehicles. Automakers have been too timid in their efforts to develop such vehicles, MacCready suggested, and General Motors was too quick to give up on the Impact EV-1. (The EV-1, incidentally, had the lowest drag of any car ever commercially produced.) Focusing more on electric vehicle technology, MacCready argued, would also lead to more efficient hybrid vehicle. Yet, MacCready lamented, to his knowledge no automaker is devoting sufficient resources to such innovations.

MacCready also talked about other interesting technological innovations, such as mechanical “techno legs� that can help someone carry heavy loads for a great difference, a car with legs instead of wheels (to reduce rolling friction), and tiny electric-powered drone planes, including one only 15.2 centimeters(!) in length, and another with folding wings that could be launched out of a cannon or artillery battery.

MacCready also showed an interesting slide comparing the weight of humans and domesticated animals, on the one hand, and all wild air and land vertebrates on the other. By this measure, humanity accounts for well over 90 percent of the vertebrate weight on the planet, which is one measure of humanity’s domination of nature. On a more optimistic note, MacCready observed that information technology and knowledge are increasing at an exponential rate, which may lead to sufficient technological solutions.

He closed with the following thought: "Over billions of years, on a unique sphere, chance has painted a thin cover of life – complex, improbable, wonderful and fragile. Suddenly we humans (a recently species no longer subject to the checks and balances inherent in nature), have grown in population, technology, and intelligence to a position of terrible power: we now wield the paintbrush."

[As a side note, MacCready began with a few comments on Michael Crichton who, MacCready noted, once believed in some claims of the paranormal – a claim Crichton acknowledged in his book Travels.]

« Close It

As Arnold describes it, there are three possible approaches to environmental policy 1) "Let the Market Work" (which isn’t workable because of “market failure� and “externalities�); 2) Traditional Government Regulation (i.e. “command and control,� which is often inefficient); and 3) "Hybrid" Market-based Programs (e.g. tradable emission credits, "cap and trade," etc.). In Arnold's view, the third approach is the best because it allows for the achievement of societal goals in the quickest manner at the lowest cost. Such programs typically involve the creation of a given environmental goal, such as an emission limit, and the allocation of tradable credits among firms so as to help internalize the environmental cost of economic activity.

As long time readers know, I am somewhat skeptical of this approach (and have called it "faux market environmentalism"). My greatest concern is that the real environmental policy problem is not to achieve a given goal at the lowest cost, but to figure out what the proper goal is in the first place. We don't use the government to determine output levels for economic goods (and for good reason), so we should be skeptical of setting output levels for environmental goods that way. If the government is seeking to mandate an increase in renewable energy, such as by requiring utilities to adopt renewable portfolio standards, tradable credits may reduce the cost, but the real question is whether governments should be telling utilities how to generate energy in the first place (and whether governments will efficiently set output levels and allocate shares). That said, there are certainly instances in which there is no viable alternative. That is, where it is impossible to create actual property rights in environmental resources (because you can't "let the market work" where you don’t have property rights upon which the market is based) tradable credit systems may make sense. But for me, this approach is never more than a second-best solution.

In the area of climate change, Arnold noted that many states are moving ahead with climate policies, and some of the state measures are beginning to have some bite. As has happened before, Arnold suggests that the proliferation of state policies will eventually induce large corporations to support federal legislation, such as the McCain-Lieberman bill (or the more modest proposals put forward by Senator Feinstein or Senator Domenici). He also suggested that the new Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, may be an advocate within the administration for adoption of a tradable credit regime for carbon dioxide. In any event, global markets for carbon credits will never work without U.S. participation.

« Close It

According to Benford, the most important approach at the current time is not the development of non-fossil fuel sources (they can’t provide enough energy) or reductions in energy demand (because of economic demands), but carbon sequestration. In other words, neither state power nor piety will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Kyoto’s emission limits won’t be complied with, and it’s only a drop in the bucket. (Alcohol prohibition didn’t work; energy prohibition won’t either.)

On the positive side, energy intensity and carbon intensity are dropping, at least in the industrialized world. But this will not be enough. By 2050 we will need 10-30 terrawatts of carbon-free power. To do this, Benford argued, there need to be massive, government incentives for massive technological development, on the scale of the Manhattan Project. Technologies in the current research and development pipeline are not enough to stabilize carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Thus, energy intensity improvements will help, but they will not be enough. Nor will non-fossil fuel energy sources close the gap on their own. The land requirements for solar are massive, and biomass has limitations as well.

Benford proffered three immediate policy steps – emergency sequestration of carbon, changing the reflectivity of buildings and blacktop in cities, and increase the amount of cloud cover over the tropical oceans. Carbon sequestration into the ocean could eliminate the carbon dioxide equivalent of 10 terrawatts per year. Coal is going to get used eventually, so sequestration is particularly necessary. Forests can sequester carbon too, but this will not be as effective as ocean sequestration. Salt domes are another possible sequestration site, but they are too likely to leak (due to holes punched by wildcatters). One problem with ocean sequestration, however, is that it would alter the PH-balance of the ocean, with potentially catastrophic impacts on coral (a problem that Benford says is occurring anyway, and that humans could learn to address as well).

Other ideas are a bit far-fetched (such as a $500 billion solar power satellite with a lens the size of North America to reduce the amount of solar radiative forcing on the Earth. This is theoretically possible, but it ain’t gonna happen.

Rapid climate change is still a potential problem for which we need to be prepared, Benford suggested. If rapid climate change were to occur – such as would shut down the ocean circulation current – he argued that we will need some way to enhance the Earth’s albedo effect with aerosol particles so as to reduce the radiative forcing on the planet. This may seem an extreme scenario, but Benford argued that something of this sort should be examined. Indeed, he proposed to try this out above the Arctic to see if it is a viable climate control strategy (for a cost of approximately $100 million). It’s an interesting idea, but I don’t see it as particularly politically viable (even ignoring some of the potential unintended consequences of such an experiment).

Benford’s bottom line was that human beings are altering the climate whether we like it or not. The choice is whether to keep doing it “stupidly� as we are now, or “smartly� in a way that serves human interests. What humanity must do, he argued, is become the “stewards of the Earth,� and take deliberate control of the planet’s climate. He may be right, but don’t expect to hear that in a political campaign any time soon.

« Close It

The beginning of human agriculture completely transformed human society, Fagan noted. This also increased human vulnerability to climate, Fagan suggested, because societies were now tied to the land. Ancient Egypt, for example, split apart at one point because a major drought dried up the Nile, triggering agricultural failure. The most successful regions were those where local leaders managed grain supplies. When Egypt was reunited, future Pharoahs were more active in stockpiling grain. The massive El Nino event of 600 A.D., combined with an earthquake, led to the collapse of ancient Peruvian society when agriculture failed. The lesson from these two examples, Fagan argued, is the need for government investment to prepare for inevitable disasters and downturns, as well as for less hubris about the durability of human society. (If I sound skeptical, it is because I am; I doubt Egyptian history really provides much support for central planning, and there is plenty of evidence against Diamond-esque “Collapse� theories.)

Fagan also spoke of rural life in 14th Century Europe – a life governed by the change of the seasons. Yet beginning in 1315, parts of Europe experience nearly seven years of cold rains. Because most medieval peasants lived from harvest to harvest, the prolonged rains had a calamitous effect. Many people on the planet still live in conditions like those of Medieval Europe. The difference, Fagan suggests, is that their vulnerability has increased. Indeed, Fagan said, modern society remains vulnerable despite modern technology and wealth. “The only solution is long-term investment,� he says.

Fagan’s conclusion is that history tells us human society has evolved from nimble hunter-gatherers to cumbersome elephants that are increasingly vulnerable to environmental change. Without political will and leadership, he said, we will remain “utterly vulnerable� to climate change. The devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina is an example of this, Fagan said (without noting that natural catastrophes cause far more death and devastation in less-developed, less-advanced, less-wealthy societies – suggesting that actual vulnerability is a function of wealth, technology and institutional arrangements ). Because of societal vulnerabilities and climate change, concluded Fagan, “the future of humankind may well be in trouble.� Perhaps, but I hardly think greater political control of resources is the answer.

« Close It

First up was the hypothesis that a comet or asteroid hitting the Earth killed off the dinosaurs and caused a mass extinction. Prothero surveyed the evidence for an ancient asteroid collision, but noted that the evidence that such an impact killed off the dinosaurs has problems. Among other things, marine reptiles and invertebrates began to die off before the potential impact, while other species were not effected at all by the alleged impact event. From the available evidence, it does not appear that an asteroid impact killed off the dinosaurs. Indeed, of the five mass extinctions in the Earth’s history, only one shows evidence of an impact event, and there is evidence for several substantial asteroid impacts that do not appear to have had any impact on extinction rates.

Prothero notes that scientists have sought to find a single cause for all five major extinction events in the Earth’s history. However, as with asteroid impacts, no single cause is consistent with the all of the evidence. Volcanism and climate change both played a role in prior mass extinctions, but neither is the cause of prior mass extinctions.

Another interesting part of Prothero’s talk was about the prevailing theory for what caused the creation of the Arctic Ice Cap: The closure of the Isthmus of Panama. This was important because it altered ocean circulation. It also led to the intermixing of species that previously had only lived in South America (which had been an island up until this point).

The Earth is currently in an interglacial period, Prothero noted, and anotherglacial period (“Ice Age�). Because prior interglacials have typically lasted less than 10,000 years, the next glacial period should come along relatively soon – were it not for global warming. The likely outcome, Prothero suggests, is either a new glacial or a “super interglacial� produced by anthropogenic global warming. In the latter scenario, the Earth would be as warm as when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and crocodiles lived at the Arctic Circle.

Prothero ended an otherwise interesting talk by suggesting that any “controversy� over global climate change is ginned up by conservative think tanks and corporate-funded scientists, and that there is little in the peer-reviewed literature casting doubt on the threat of climate change.

« Close It

Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science, is up first. Mooney claims the mantle of "skeptic" and opens with the claim that "skepticism" has been misused in the climate change debate, as the scientific evidence is fairly clear. Mooney's central argument is that the Right is far worse at distorting science, at least at the present moment in the United States. Those involved in policy debates are constantly involved in spinning and cherry-picking scientific findings, but there are matters of degree. What makes the Right's distortions worse? Mooney uses several criteria: 1) the consequences of the distortions; 2) the extent of the distortions; 3) the institutionalization of the distortions; and 4) whether the distortions are made in "good faith." In each case, Mooney argues, the Right is worse today than the Left.

Mooney argues that there are two sources of the Right's distortions. One is the religious right, which distorts science for ideological purposes. The other is corporate America, which distorts science for economic gain. The religious right's attack on science is quite fundamental, insofar as it has challenged evolutionary theory and (in the case of the Discovery Institute) seeks "to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies." The religious right does more than this, though, pushing contrarian claims with regard to stem cell research, abstinence-only education, and the like. The extent of the religious right's assault on science, its consequences and institutionalization, should be enough to win the debate, Mooney claims.

Mooney next turns to the scientific distortions of corporate America that have been embraced by the Right – and institutionalized through corporate support of conservative think tanks and policy organizations. Mooney likens this effort to the tobacco industry's effort to manufacture uncertainty about the risks of smoking, and suggests it is a "comprehensive strategy" to oppose regulation.

Mooney acknowledges environmentalist misinformation on genetically modified foods and past Malthusian claims, but he says he has yet to see evidence that environmentalists have consciously manipulated science for political purposes (I'll have to send him some). Mooney qualifies this, however, saying he would "rather be unnecessarily alarmed than blind-sided" "There are worse things you can be than chicken little," Mooney says.

Ronald Bailey is up, not to defend the Bush Administration, but to show that environmental science has been exaggerated and distorted for decades. He notes that he began writing about environmental issues when he decided to revisit the apocalyptic Malthusian claims of the 1970s. What he found is that man environmental activists were eager to exaggerate and misuse science because science is perhaps the most persuasive source of authority in modern secular society.

Bailey runs through the history of some of the most misguided projections, such as those by Paul Ehrlich in The Population Bomb, who urged cutting off food aid to the developing world because the situation was hopeless. Fortunately, Bailey notes, Norman Borlaug and others engaged in agricultural research launched the "green revolution," that dramatically increased food yields, preventing the famines and die-offs that Ehrlich predicted. Significantly, the famines were avoided not by following Ehrlich's policy prescriptions, but by ignoring them.

Ehrlich made his claims in the 1960s and 1970s but, Bailey notes, similar Malthusian claims are still made today. Jared Diamond, for example, chronicles many events in his book Collapse, but totally misunderstands the causes of the things he describes. Population growth is not caused by people breeding like rabbits, but because people stopped dying like flies. Population growth is slowing, however, and humanity has come nowhere close to maximizing food production.

Similarly wrong-headed claims were made by the Club of Rome, Jay Forrester and others who promoted the idea of the "Limits to Growth." These predictions failed because they did not account for the economic response to scarcity and human ingenuity. Responding to Dr. Goodstein, Bailey notes that current USGS estimates of fossil fuels are far greater than those presumed by peak oil theorists. Insofar as we have an "oil crisis" in the near term, it will be a political crisis, not a resource one. In the longer term, Bailey explained, economic signals will spur investment in alternative fuel sources as they have in the past.

Bailey next turns to the chemical-induced "cancer epidemic" predicted by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring. This epidemic never materialized, in part because many of the premises on which it was based were false. Nonetheless, the United States maintains billions of dollars to reduce the risk of cancer from synthetic chemicals, and the threat still proclaimed today by environmental activists. The National Academy of Sciences has dismissed the risk of pesticide residues on foods, but environmentalists warn of it nonetheless.

Briefly on global warming, Bailey notes he is no longer a "skeptic," but does believe environmentalists have exaggerated many of the claims for political grounds.

Mooney does not disagree with many of Bailey's claims. Rather he notes that the influence of those Bailey critiques has been less than those who currently influence policy. Those who are afraid of synthetic chemicals are not, Mooney notes, particularly influential in the Bush Administration (though, Mooney fails to note, the Bush Administration has not repealed those regulations motivated by earlier fears." Moreover, he argues, environmental activists have not been as influential in the Clinton Administration as religious and corporate interests are in the Bush Administration. Mooney also notes that "hindsight is 20/20" and "wrong predictions are a dime a dozen," but that does not mean there are no real threats on the horizon. Mooney further defends the adoption of "precautionary" regulation to protect the public when there is scientific uncertainty.

Mooney also admits that Democratic politicians have made some outlandish scientific claims, such as Senator John Edwards promise that "people like Christopher Reeve" would get up and walk were John Kerry elected President and stem cell research expanded. Such claims are outrageous, Mooney admits, but not as bad as what is currently done by those in power today on the Right.

Bailey picks up where he left off, noting that environmentalist scares have had a major policy effect. Among other things, the led to the creation of the most powerful regulatory agency in Washington, D.C. – the Environmental Protection Agency. Yet the cancer epidemic never materialized. To the contrary, cancer is on a slow decline.

Bailey briefly discusses the projections of a "nuclear winter" – which was yet another example of ginned up science on the Left (and one propagated by arch-skeptic Carl Sagan).

The campaign against biotechnology, including genetically modified foods, continues apace, Bailey notes. Environmental activists attack the technology (as do some on the Right), despite the lack of any documented case of a GMO-induced health problem in a single person. Bailey undermines his case by noting the rapid proliferation of biotech crops (despite some environmentalists' best efforts). What Bailey fails to note is that this proliferation has been slowed dramatically due to environmentalist efforts, particularly in other countries. Environmental activists may not have much influence in the Bush Administration, but they are more influential on the world stage. They have also committed atrocious acts, such as telling hungry Zimbabweans that food from biotech crops would poison them.

Bailey closes noting that science can inform policy debates, but does not dictate policy outcomes. Global warming is a threat, but so are global warming policies. For the world's poor, increasing fuel costs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, will have disastrous effects. For this reason, maintaining and increasing wealth is no less important than addressing potentially harmful environmental changes.

Mooney replies that he is still more worried about the Bush Administration than he is about environmentalist groups. Fears like nuclear winter were debunked by other scientists, whereas the President at the time (Ronald Reagan) was fundamentally anti-science. Mooney agrees with Bailey on GMOs, but he does not think that environmentalist exaggerations have had a significant impact on policy. While there is a long history of political manipulation of science on both the Left and the Right, Mooney concludes, the contemporary threat from the Right is particularly "unique and scary."

Bailey notes that the Bush Administration, like all administrations, are temporary things – and science is a stronger institution than any administration. The adoption of precautionary regulation may seem wise, but it also has costs. FDA drug lag, for example, delays the adoption of new pharmaceuticals and their health benefits. Humanity may be hard-wired to be over-cautious, Bailey notes, but that does not mean it makes for good policy. Bailey closes on a positive note, suggesting that progress will continue thanks to human ingenuity, irrespective of what the politicians do.

the Q&A covers a wide range of issues. Of note, Mooney makes a bait-and-switch on the line between policy in science. When asked about the use of science under the Endangered Species Act, he defends the current "best available science" standard and decries Republican efforts to raise the scientific bar. Yet this is a policy debate, not a scientific one. The level of scientific certainty required to trigger regulatory action is a policy judgment, and Mooney wrongly suggests there is a scientific basis for preferring one standard over another (an error he also makes in his book).

In response to another question Mooney notes that many of those who seek to politicize science write popular books and articles because they cannot publish articles in peer-reviewed journals. Bailey agreed, but also notes that much politically inspired science is nonetheless published in peer-reviewed journals. "Peer review is not a perfect thing in itself," Bailey says. The "gold standard" of science is not peer review, but replication. We should protect it from politics, but not "fetishize it."

« Close It

Carbon dioxide has been increasing dramatically; this increase is due to human activity, though some anthropogenic emissions are taken up by carbon sinks; carbon dioxide magnifies the greenhouse effect because it absorbs solar radiation; increasing carbon dioxide increases the radiative forcing in the lower atmosphere; global mean temperatures have generally risen with the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations; temperatures on land have increased than temperatures over water due to the thermal inertia of the oceans; various feedbacks within the climate system, both positive and negative, modify the extent to which increases in radiative forcing increases surface temperatures; the extent of these feedbacks represent the greatest uncertainty in projected climate change; despite the uncertainties, climate models do a fairly good job of replicating the temperature changes of the past 150 years; model projections for the future vary substantially in their projections – between 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius by 2100) – largely due to difference assumptions regarding cloud feedbacks and future patterns of energy use; future warming will occur primarily on land, increasing the risk of summer droughts and increasing sea level.

Schneider adds that there is large thermal and dynamic inertia in the climate system, and therefore much of the climate forcing already underway will continue irrespective of whether greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilized in the near term (which is an exceedingly unrealistic). Thus, climate change is inevitable. The issue today is how much climate change we are willing to tolerate (or risk), not whether we will address climate change.

In response to questions, Schneider says the risks are serious, but there is no risk of a runaway greenhouse effect turning planet Earth into another Venus. He also stresses that the scientific findings do not determine what policies we should adopt.

Another questioner wonders about the effects of sulfates. It is assumed that sulfate aerosols led to global cooling between the 1940s and 1970s, and this can be seen regionally over the United States. The questioner wonders why there is not a similar regional cooling in parts of the world that have industrialized since, such as India and China, where sulfate pollution has not decreased as it has in the West. Schneider suggests this cooling effect has been swamped by the overall warming, but seems tentative in his response.

« Close It

Goodstein, a physicist by training, is an advocate of "peak oil" theory, and presents the all-too familiar graphs of M. King Hubbert illustrating "Hubbert's Peak." While Hubbert's prediction of when U.S. onshore oil production would peak was controversial, he proved correct. He notes that today oil discoveries are declining while extraction is increasing, yet proven oil reserves are climbing. This is because proven reserves are a "political" number and not an actual measure of oil available in the ground. The peak in production is imminent, Goodstein says. We don't quite know what the impact of a peak will be, but the oil crises of 1972 and 1979 were "dry runs." When it happens it will "not be temporary," rather it will be permanent.

As cautionary notes, Goodstein does point out that technological increases are the equivalent of new discoveries in terms of their effect on supply and that price increases do make more oil available. Proven reserves are a measure of what can be extracted economically, not what exists in the ground. Nonetheless, he believes the peak is approaching rapidly. This is a concern because so much modern civilization, particularly modern transportation, depends on the use of fossil fuels.

Goodstein next takes on the economic argument that as oil prices increase, other fossil fuels will be substituted for oil. Alternative fuels, such as natural gas, or only a temporary solution, Goodstein argues. He also discounts the potential for shale oil or methane hydrate to make a difference. Coal can be liquefied to substitute for oil, but it is intolerably dirty (containing mercury, arsenic, and sulfur). Moreover, if coal production were to replace oil, coal use would have to increase by a factor of five, requiring the mining of coal on an intolerable scale and causing a rapid depletion of coal reserves. Indeed, Goodstein predicts that the Hubbert's Peal for coal would occur within a century.

Goodstein argues that the peak of oil will occur at some point soon – perhaps as soon as ten to twenty years. Making a shift to alternatives exceedingly important. Such a transition, such as to nuclear and solar power, will be difficult and costly, however, and will take many years.

In closing, Goodstein offers a prediction: "Civilization as we know it will come to an end sometime in this century, when the fuel runs out." Wheras most scientists hope their predictions are proven true, because it shows how smart they are, Goodstein hopes his predictions is wrong.

« Close It

The Bush Administraiton has ignored the facts of science in two ways. First, the administration has ignored the "facts" of science, such as in the case of global warming and the need for alternative fuels due to the "increasing scarcity" of liquid fuels, making political drug approval decisions, arbitrary stem cell research policies, and encouraging the teaching of intelligent design. On some of these, Baltimore's criticism is dead on. But in other areas, he is clearly conflating science and policy. The Bush Administration may spin scientific findings when refusing to approve the "Plan B" morning-after pill, but no one mistakes the policy for a "scientific" decision, any ore than one position or another on abortion or the value of embryos is "scientific." These are normative judgments – judgments that science may inform, but judgments that remain normative at their core.

Second, the Administration has ignored the importance of science in American competitiveness. Among other things, the administration has failed to keep the borders open to foreign scientists and adequately support scientific research. Since the arrival of Samuel Bodman as Secretary of Energy, however, the administration has been more supportive of alternative energy and the importance of scientific research for competitiveness. Despite this welcome trend, Baltimore believes, the Bush Administration's approach to science represent "ideology trumping fact-based analysis." Indeed, Baltimore observes, the administration has not shown any increased willingness to consider inconvenient scientific facts.

The Administration's refusal to fund more stem cell research has caused a "sea change" in science funding, Baltimore observes. California, for instance, explicitly legalized and began state-funding of stem cell research. Yet with state funding has come "the release of parochial interests" – Californians want to be sure Californians benefit from the research – which has slowed the issuance of bonds to fund the research.

It's time for rational discussion of scientific issues, Baltimore contends, and time for "getting beyond" debates over the causes of global warming and onto serious policy discussions. In particular, Baltimore notes, the challenge is to find a way to transform solar energy into a liquid fuel to solve the energy problem. More broadly, he hopes science can return to a respected place at the policy table "so at least people know what's right and what's wrong."

« Close It

Shermer is the "skeptic" columnist for Scientific American. In a recent column, "The Flipping Point," he declared he is no longer skeptical about the threat of anthropogenic global warming, announcing "it is time to flip from skepticism to activism." Perhaps appropriately, he begins the conference with a trailer for Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth." Shermer notes he used to hear similar things about global cooling in the 1970s, but he'd never focused on environmental issues.

Fast-forward a few decades, Shermer ran a debate over Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist, despite warnings from environmentalist activists not to legitimize the book. Since then, Shermer started to pay attention to environmental matters, particularly in the last year. One thing that particularly caught his eye was the "evangelical call to action" because this was the "last group" he expected to endorse environmental causes. Then seeing the Gore slide show upon which the movie is based, and reading multiple books on the subject (especially Tim Flannnery's The Weather Makers). The end result was the column announcing his newfound belief in the threat of anthropogenic global warming.

The flipping point column provoked a torrent of e-mail criticism from both sides – from fellow skeptics for abandoning his "skepticism" and from believers for coming late to the party. Today's conference, Shermer notes, will investigate many of the claims that caused his conversion.

« Close It