=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #467
—November 9, 1995—
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
==========
Back Issues | Index | Official Gopher Archive
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s
free.
===Previous
Issue==========================================Next
Issue===
“IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH”
Scientists don’t like to think of science as a popularity contest
of ideas. But that’s really what it is. [1] The only people who
get to vote in the contest are specialists in a particular field
of inquiry, but scientists do “vote” for or against particular
ideas by agreeing or disagreeing with them. An idea is
considered “true” when the great majority of scientists say they
agree with it. In other words, in science, truth shifts as
scientists change their minds. This means that scientific
“truth” has a “political” component because scientists may vote
for or against an idea based on something besides their own
observations of nature. For example, WHERE an idea is published
may be nearly as persuasive as the idea itself. For example, in
the field of geology, an idea published in the JOURNAL OF
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH (JGR) becomes important simply because it
has appeared in JGR.
The global warming debate is no different from other scientific
ideas. For about 100 years, scientists have been saying that an
increase in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere (from
burning coal and oil) will, sooner or later, heat up the planet.
Carbon dioxide allows sunlight to strike the earth, but traps
some of the resulting heat. This is not disputed. Sooner or
later, this additional heat will warm the planet, just the way a
glass roof warms a greenhouse. Very few scientists dispute this
prediction.
Furthermore, there is no doubt that the carbon dioxide content of
the atmosphere has increased 30% during the past century –an
increase caused by humans burning coal and oil. The increase has
been carefully measured, and is not in dispute.
For the past 20 years, scientists have been looking for a
telltale “signal” that the increasing carbon dioxide content of
the atmosphere is actually producing a warming effect
planet-wide. The problem is that the temperature varies
naturally (daily and seasonal changes, plus larger fluctuations
from decade to decade and from century to century, caused by
unknown forces), so scientists are trying to “see” the global
warming “signal” against the “background noise” of natural
variations.
In June of 1988 –a record-breaking hot summer in the U.S. –Dr.
James Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) testified before Congress, saying he believed he was
seeing the signal of global warming. [2] Hansen thus cast his
vote “for” global warming. Many of his colleagues scoffed and
said no one could yet see the signal. A scientist with unpopular
ideas can become a pariah, and Dr. Hansen received some of that
treatment. Dr. Hansen’s experience may well have silenced other
scientists who agreed with him.
Now more and more scientists are casting their vote on the side
that says, “We are seeing the signal.” Dr. Hansen is no longer
alone. There is evidence that glaciers are melting, oceans are
warming, and the seas are rising (chiefly because water expands
as it warms).
In October, Thomas Karl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration published a paper in NATURE showing that extremes
of climate in the U.S. have increased since 1976, compared to the
previous 65 years, consistent with the theory of global
warming. [3] It was an important piece of evidence indicating
that the signal is now becoming visible amidst the noise.
Even more importantly, in spring of 1996, a new report will be
published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), saying that global warming is occurring and that humans
are at least partially responsible. In other words, the IPCC
–some 200 of the world’s best-known climate specialists –has
moved over to Dr. Hansen’s side in the debate. After the IPCC
report is published, only a handfull of climate specialists will
remain on the “unconvinced” side.
In a front page story September 10, the NEW YORK TIMES announced
the new IPCC report this way: “In an important shift of
scientific judgment, experts advising the world’s governments on
climate change are saying for the first time that human activity
is a likely cause of the warming of the global atmosphere.” [4]
The TIMES went on to list the effects of global warming, as
described by the IPCC: “…many adverse effects. These include
more extreme weather [heat, cold, floods, droughts] and possibly
more intense tropical storms [hurricanes, typhoons], destruction
of some communities by rising seas, damage to and loss of natural
ecosystems that cannot adapt rapidly enough [for example, coral
reefs; mangrove thickets; coastal wetlands; northern forests],
diminished agricultural output in some places [the interior of
continents, for example], and an increase in some tropical
diseases [malaria; yellow fever; dengue fever; schistosomiasis;
see REHW #466].”
A week later the TIMES followed up with a second front-page
story, which began: “The earth has entered a period of climatic
change that is likely to cause widespread economic, social and
environmental dislocation over the next century if emissions of
heat-trapping gases are not reduced, according to experts
advising the world’s governments.” [5]
Reducing heat-trapping gases requires a shift away from coal and
oil to solar energy. (Using solar energy merely means extracting
useful work from the stream of sunlight that already strikes the
planet; no additional heat is created or released, thus avoiding
the threat of global warming.)
So the scientific debate is coming to an end as the world’s
experts begin to agree, “We are seeing the signal.” However,
scientific consensus alone will not avert the widespread
dislocation that the IPCC says global warming is likely to bring.
To avert the suffering, the scientific consensus must be
translated into public and private programs to move away from
coal and oil toward solar energy (probably employing hydrogen for
storage). The needed technologies already exist (see RHWN #252).
The determination to adopt them is what’s missing.
So now we enter a period of major political struggle. On one
side are the scientists trying to get the word out to the public
that burning coal and oil is likely to cause major disruptions of
life as we know it –breaking apart the Creator’s handiwork in
ways we only dimly understand. On the other hand, the coal and
oil companies will be trying to keep doubt alive, saying we don’t
really know whether global warming is worth avoiding.
The coal and oil companies are among the most powerful
corporations on the planet. Many of them have annual sales
larger than the annual value of the total goods and services
produced by many countries. For example, Exxon ($103.5 billion)
is larger than Finland ($93.9 billion) and larger than Israel
($69.8 billion). Mobil Oil ($57.4 billion) is larger than
Ireland ($43.3 billion) and larger than New Zealand ($41.3
billion). Chevron Oil ($37.5 billion) is larger than Algeria
($35.7 billion), larger than Hungary ($35.2 billion), larger than
Egypt ($33.6 billion), larger than Morocco ($28.4 billion), and
larger than Peru ($22.1 billion). [6]
While a few hundred scientists write about the dangers of global
warming in journals with names like NATURE, and SCIENCE and THE
LANCET –Mobil Oil places ads on the op-ed page of the NEW YORK
TIMES simultaneously lobbying both the educated elite and, at the
other end of the scale, the Congress, urging ‘no action’ on
global warming. For example on February 25, 1993, a Mobil ad
acknowledged that “if present trends continue, carbon dioxide
levels will double over the next 50 to 100 years.” This is the
IPCC’s position. But the ad goes on to say this may not have any
effect whatsoever, or it may actually be beneficial.
As its source of scientific opinion, the Mobil ad quotes a book
published by the Pacific Research Institute, a San Francisco
think tank which describes itself (though not in the Mobil ad) as
“a non-profit education organization that aims to foster
individual liberty through free markets, protection of private
property rights, and advocacy of limited government.” The Mobil
ad quotes the book saying, “…the highly touted greenhouse
disaster is most improbable.” Mobil then quotes S. Fred Singer.
For years, Singer was a professor at the University of Virginia
where he was funded by energy companies to pump out glossy
pamphlets pooh-poohing climate change. (See REHW 355.) Singer
hasn’t published original research on climate change in 20 years,
and is now an “independent” consultant, who spends his time
writing letters to the editor, and testifying before Congress,
claiming that ozone-depletion and global warming aren’t real
problems. In the Mobil ad, Singer is quoted saying “the net
impact [of a modest warming] may well be beneficial.” The Mobil
ad sums up, “It would seem that the [global warming] phenomenon
–and its impact on the economy –are important enough to warrant
considerably more research before proposing actions we may later
regret. Perhaps the sky isn’t falling, after all.”
This kind of corporate disinformation has its intended effect.
Representative Dana Rohrabacher (Republican of California), who
heads the House subcommittee on energy and environment, said
recently, “Nowhere is scientific nonsense more evident than in
global warming programs that are sprinkled throughout the current
year budget.” But Americans need not worry, he assured us,
because “there’s a new gang in town… Our ’96 budget does not
operate on the assumption that global warming is a proven
phenomenon. In fact, it is assumed at best to be unproven and at
worst to be liberal claptrap, trendy, but soon to go out of style
in our Newt Congress.” [7] At least 10% of Mr. Rohrabacher’s
$180,000 re-election campaign in 1994 was funded by energy and
transportation corporations. [8]
Mr. Rohrabacher’s words have been backed up by deeds in this
Congress: On October 12, the House approved a $21.5 billion
science bill, which explicitly prohibits U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency from conducting ANY research on global warming.
Science is a popularity contest among competing ideas. But even
when scientists reach consensus, their truth may have no effect
on public policy. In opposition to scientific consensus, a
handfull of disgruntled critics, their tiny voices amplified by a
billion-dollar corporation, can make endless arguments that war
is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and global
warming may be good for you.
–Peter Montague
                
                
                
                
    
[2] “‘Greenhouse Warming Said to Begin,” FACTS ON FILE WORLD NEWS
DIGEST July 1, 1988, pg. 476A2.
Descriptor terms: science; global warming; carbon dioxide;
greenhouse effect; james hansen; thomas karl; ipcc;
intergovernmental panel on climate change; oceans; glaciers; oil;
coal; exxon; mobil; chevron; pacific research institute; s. fred
singer; dana rohrabacher; campaign finance;