Reactions to Report on Al Gore at AGU
December 15th, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
This news report of Al Gore’s speech at the American Geophysical Union yesterday is interesting for at least three reasons.
Here is the relevant excerpt from the news story:
“We have somehow persuaded ourselves that we really don’t have to care that much about what we’re doing to future generations,” he said.
“We have to find a way to communicate the direness of the situation.”
James Hansen, director of NASA’S Goddard Institute for Space Studies, had a front row seat to Gore’s hour-long talk. His name often comes up when talk turns to the need in science for a standard-bearer; more than any scientist, he has generated headlines for his spars with the White House on climate change.
He agreed fully with Gore’s call. “Scientists have not done a good job communicating with the public,” he said in an interview.
The “huge gap” between where the science is and what the public knows, Hansen added, “is partly our fault and part of the problem.”
Dan Kammen, co-director of the University of California’s Institute of the Environment and a professor in the Energy and Resources Group, said being a scientist activist has its price. He’s lost out on grants because of his political positions on energy and climate issues, he said.
“Some of us have been doing this for some time and at some risk,” Kammen said.
Are more scientists likely to heed Gore’s call? In a few weeks, a pack of climate scientists and politicians are planning a demonstration in front of the White House.
First interesting item: James Hansen asserts that scientists have not done a good job communicating with the public. Of course there is a huge gap between what climate experts know and what the public knows. There are similar gaps between what experts know about the history of Iraq and what the public knows, how a modern automobile works under the hood and what the public knows, functioning of cancer cells and what the public knows, and every single other issue for which experts have specialized knowledge. I will speculate that Dr. Hansen is making a political point, as Mr. Gore did, suggesting that if the public only knew what they knew, then they’d act exactly like Mr. Gore or Dr. Hansen. This of course is the public understanding of science (PUS) fallacy that we have discussed many times here. There are two responses to the PUS fallacy on climate change. First, for many years, and especially 2006 there has been overwhelming awareness of the public about climate change and support for action. What is it that Mr. Gore and Dr. Hansen think will happen if the public becomes more educated? The only place for opinion polls on this issue to go is down. Consider that the EU public overwhelming supports action on climate change and yet EU performance closely resembles that of the United States. There is more to this issue than public opinion. Of course, public opinion matters a great deal if one, hypothetically, is using the global warming issue for some larger goal, like running for president. (Disclaimer: I’ve bet Lisa D. lunch that Mr. Gore will run. We shall see.)
Second interesting item: Berkeley’s Dan Kammen suggest that he has lost out on grants because of his political views? Prof. Kammen is a darling of the climate community, and based on what I’ve seen and read, it is well deserved. I find it hard to believe that he has been punished for his popular and widely accepted views. As I had earlier stated about Bill Gray’s claims about funding, I’d need some evidence to buy such claims.
Third interesting item: “In a few weeks, a pack of climate scientists and politicians are planning a demonstration in front of the White House.”
December 14th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
Al Gore is a demagogue. Don’t for a minute think he is about anything other than Al Gore and power. When he lost influence in the Democratic party he latched onto the environmental movement as a ready made power base. That’s all they are to him.
They do look nice in their matching earth tone shirts.
December 15th, 2006 at 1:00 am
It is interesting that with all the talk of industry backing climate sceptics, Al Gore gets completely off the hook when he stands to gain a lot of money from fear of climate change:
http://www.generationim.com/
December 15th, 2006 at 1:47 am
An absurd news story. The first time I’ve seen the claim of warmest for ‘40 million years.’
If we look objectively at the past 10,000 years we see cycles of warming and cooling, including the time when the Antarctic’s Larsen A and B ice-shelves were probably absent, only to reach a maximum during the Little Ice Age. The Arctic story is similar. The upshot is that natural variability has not been exceeded despite a 30% increse in atmospheric CO2.
December 15th, 2006 at 2:04 am
A couple other interesting items from Gore’s talk (very roughly paraphrased):
without governance based on scientific reason (“the source of ultimate authority” – yikes!), we cannot make progress on the toughest issues of climate change.
which in my view is completely in conflict with his assertion that:
scientists need to be much more active in communicating the POLITICAL implications of their work.
of course, regardless of what you think about the merits of the former, the latter will serve only to politicize science, and certainly won’t “scientize” politics.
December 15th, 2006 at 2:54 am
Roger,
Your presentation somewhat distorts the public opinion story, and it distorts in just the sort of way to trivialize Gore and Hansen’s point.
According to Pew, a large proportion of Americans (70%) do in fact agree that global warming is happening, as you say, but only 40% think that it is due to human activity, and a majority mistakenly think that scientists are divided over the issue.
Further, a smaller fraction of Americans express “a great deal” of concern about global warming than do citizens of other nations.
(http://pewresearch.org/reports/?ReportID=34)
As you surely must know, whether you agree yourself that we should take serious action or not, the real issue is not just opinion about climate change, but intensity of concern sufficient to generate the kind of political will to take action on climate change. Hansen and Gore’s point, as I understand it, is that if more people knew, not only that the global warming is happening, but that it was being caused by humans, and that there was no fundamental disagreement about these points among scientists, that the level of intensity of concern would rise.
Best,
-Scott
December 15th, 2006 at 7:58 am
Scott-
Thanks. I agree with your characterization of Gore and Hansen’s thesis:
“Hansen and Gore’s point, as I understand it, is that if more people knew, not only that the global warming is happening, but that it was being caused by humans, and that there was no fundamental disagreement about these points among scientists, that the level of intensity of concern would rise.”
This is a good example of what is called the “deficit model” of the public understanding of science, critiqued most authoritatively by Brian Wynne and colleagues. The general thesis holds that the public has a “deficit” in their understanding and that if experts educate them to correct that deficit certain action will then occur. In many contexts the deficit model has been shown to be a flawed conception of the relationship between knowledge and action.
The Pew opinion poll you point to is flawed in an important respect. Global warming is due to both human and non-human causes, at least according to the IPCC. Framing the question to the public as either/or distorts the science. The IPCC says “most warming” can be attributed to human causes. As I’ve documented here many times, there is more than sufficient public support for action on climate change. the question is – what action?
Can you point to a situation where major policy action was taken on an environmental issue where the public showed a greater intensity of support based on a more sophisticated knowledge base than we now see on global warming? (Hint: No.)
Do you really think that if the public really understood the complete details of the IPCC that they’d change their political views and behavior? Any evidence for this?
It is the deficit model that of course leads to the politicization of climate science. If one equates political action with a particular scientific understanding, then debates over science are indistinguishable from debates over politics. Gore’s message, as reported at least, is asking scientists to make this equation. A perfectly reasonable thing for a politician to do, but deadly dangerous for the scientific community.
December 15th, 2006 at 8:25 am
Scott-
I should have mentioned this — you (and Gore, Hansen) are invoking the “is-ought” problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem
You can’t get an “ought” from an “is”. Gore and Hansen are saying that if scientists tell the public what “is” then what the “ought” to do will be obvious. This is simply wrong.
Of course, I am certain that Gore, at least, as an experienced politician knows this. He is probably happy simply to prey upon the misconceptions of scientists about politics in order to enlist their support.
December 15th, 2006 at 9:00 am
Re: Is/ought.
I don’t know about Al Gore and Jim Hansen, but I am most certainly not invoking the is/out fallacy. I am on record (even on this blog, I think) making clear that science along contains no moral imperative and implies no policy, and that I think that scientists are sometimes inadequately sensitive to that.
People don’t come to decisions based on facts only, but because of shared human values — and nothing in the quotes excerpted above denies that.
Certainly Gore’s presentation, which I attended, did not convey any sense to me that he was advocating or playing this fact-value split at all. Quite the opposite. If anything he was calling for that split to be repaired.
December 15th, 2006 at 9:10 am
Scott -
You are confusing consensus that global warming is happening with consensus that CO2 is causing all (or even most) of the global warming.
Action (on CO2) can include eliminating emissions or it can include increasing sinks – doing both would be a substantial challenge with a great deal of added nuclear power. Action on increasing sinks can also be action that will increase the food supply for the burgeoning population that is currently having to waste arable land to provide for their own food, and is probably, due to the signature of decreased food production levels in the LIA, preferable.
December 15th, 2006 at 9:23 am
Scott-
Thanks. The media reports (all I have to go on) all emphasize greater communication from scientists, so it is good to hear that you got a different message.
But what does this that follows that you wrote actually mean: “Certainly Gore’s presentation, which I attended, did not convey any sense to me that he was advocating or playing this fact-value split at all. Quite the opposite. If anything he was calling for that split to be repaired.”
Please explain, Thanks!
December 15th, 2006 at 11:31 am
I also attended the Gore speech, and felt that he absolutely was making the leap from “is” to “ought.” As I mentioned before, he specifically encouraged scientists to become more involved in communicating the POLITICAL implications of their work. That sounds to me like he wants scientists to tell us what we ought to be doing about climate change.
December 15th, 2006 at 11:45 am
If one has a “messiah complex” as Gore and Hansen appear to have, there is no extreme or exaggeration too great but that it will be used to convince others of the rightness of your cause.
For them, and others like them, this goes far beyond mere science.
December 15th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Steve: I am not confusing the consensus between whether global warming is happening and whether it is caused by human activities. I was citing polling data that says this confusion exists in the public. On the science community side, there is very strong consensus on both points: global warming is happening, and that most (not all) of it is caused by human activities. It is the strong scientific consensus about the second point that is most salient scientifically, and also the more important one for its policy implications.
Roger,
Gore’s fist focus was indeed the science side of that equation, not surprising giving his audience. More later, I have to run for the airport.
Best,
Scott
December 15th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Regarding Mr. Gore’s achievements in high school science classes:
From a March 19 2000 Washington Post article:
“When John C. Davis, a retired teacher and assistant headmaster at St. Albans, was recently shown his illustrious former pupil’s college board achievement test scores, he inspected them closely with a magnifier and shook his head, chuckling quietly at the science results.”
‘Four eighty-eight! Terrible’ Davis declared upon inspecting the future vice president’s 488 score (out of a possible 800) in physics.”
‘Hmmmm. Chemistry. Five-nineteen. He didn’t do too well in chemistry.’”
So did Mr Gore eventually redeem his earlier poor performance in his collegiate dabbling?
Let’s look for a clue within the fluff courses he took while in college:
From the same Washington Post article:
“The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man’s Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year.”
It must be noted that these classes were of the bonehead type of fluff courses offered in lieu of the more rigorous disciplines that even non-scientific types routinely take as legitimate collegiate level electives.
So just how did Al Gore’s mind acquire all of his keen insights?
How did he learn to implement the tools of science in time to warn us all in his uniquely messianic tones of the many calamities to befall us should we not heed his dire warnings?
I believe the answer lies not in Al Gores head but in the dismal state of science education as it is often practiced in too many of our institutions of learning, not as a disciplined process but as a series of beliefs to be inculcated – especially to the young and the impressionable.
How this man found both a soapbox and a crowd to listen says a lot more about us than it does him. I don’t believe he’s a huckster but he genuinely believes his rhetoric and thats OK for him but just what is our excuse?
December 15th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
The media picked up the bits that it knew would make headlines (and that I’m sure Mr. Gore would know would make headlines too), but there was another interesting part of the talk. Gore talked about the democratization of knowledge. Before the invention of the printing press, only monks and very specialized people had access to recorded knowledge, and that knowledge itself was even very specific. After the printing press, and then later the renaissance, there was an explosion in creation and access to knowledge that could be shared across distance (through the printed word). Television it seems is now working against that trend, 80% of people still get their info. from TV (even with the internet on the rise), and it is very expensive to gain access to putting knowledge on TV (thus reducing the democratization of knowledge in some ways). Gore also mentioned that scientists need to stop just talking amongst themselves. [Gore didn't say this, but in some ways, scientists nowadays are still a little bit like monks, publishing in journals with incredibly dense jargon and little understanding of how their research is relevant to policy.] Combining these aspects with parts of several other good talks in the communication session by Lubchenco, Olson, and Oreskes that didn’t make news headlines, there is still an important point here that has to do with actually the subject of the next post, usable science. Setting aside the problems of the PUS model and the misunderstandings of scientists for how decisions get made, there is a need for scientists to rethink how they create knowledge, and what consitutes knowledge that is usable for decision making. This wasn’t the main point that Gore was making, but several others at the conference did make it, and it does challenge scientists to take risks and think differently. My own take is that there was nothing to be too surprised about in the climate aspects of what Mr. Gore spoke about, in how he views the challenge and in his call to scientists to get involved (given his audience. I would suspect if he was talking to a conference of high-school teachers he would have tailored his remarks to their particular roles). I did enjoy the speech, it was well-crafted and took some interesting turns.
December 15th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
I said:
“You are confusing consensus that global warming is happening with consensus that CO2 is causing all (or even most) of the global warming.”
and Scott then said:
“I am not confusing the consensus between whether global warming is happening and whether it is caused by human activities”
So, Scott, this means you think CO2 is the only human activity causing global warming?
December 15th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Lisa
I agree with most of your account of Gore’s speech. There certainly were some interesting turns (like his account of the role of television in spreading apathy, and the role of the amygdala…), especially in the context of other discussions of similar topics earlier in the meeting.
But there is something disturbing about Gore’s account of democratization of knowledge. He actually called enlightened reason (referring to science, i believe) as a “new source of ultimate authority.” This is not democratization of knowledge – it’s the scientization of democracy – and it serves to marginalize many non-scientific forms of knowledge.
In some ways Gore’s strategies are stuck in the past. They are relics of the debate over whether or not climate change is a real and significant problem. Purely scientific discourse may be perfectly suitable to this debate (which is not over, but is less and less important in the mainstream), but once we get to the question of what to do about climate change, science can, at best, play only a supporting role.
A technocratic approach to these new permutations of the debate, beyond sidelining many of the important value-based aspects, will not in my opinion, lead to progress.
December 16th, 2006 at 11:52 am
“As I mentioned before, he specifically encouraged scientists to become more involved in communicating the POLITICAL implications of their work. That sounds to me like he wants scientists to tell us what we ought to be doing about climate change.”
Ryan M.,
I think I know the answer, but I’d like you to confirm. To me, it doesn’t necessarily follow that communicating the political implications of scientific research obligates the researchers to give their policy recommendations. However, leaping from one to the other isn’t that tough to do.
To wit, someone could produce a white paper on how to acheive certain technical standards and suggest that the conclusions would agitate certain groups in a particular way. But I can see where people would make the jump from discussing political implications to arguing for specific policy recommendations. Gore made this leap, yes?
December 16th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Steve,
You wrote, “So, Scott, this means you think CO2 is the only human activity causing global warming?”
If you go back and look, what I said was “there is very strong consensus on both points: global warming is happening, and that most (not all) of it is caused by human activities.”
To repeat: “most (not all) of it [global warming in the last several decades] is caused by human activities”. Crucially, it not a matter of what I think (which is not important on this point), it is the consensus of the people who understand the climate system best.
Best,
Scott
December 16th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
I second Lisa’s account of the Gore speech, though my own reaction not entirely positive. Although I tend to admire Gore as a politician (certainly relative to the standard for such creatures), I was disappointed in (though not entirely surprised by) the rather general and non-specific nature of his comments, especially pertaining to global warming policy. I was looking forward to a more specific analysis of what he thought ought be done about the “climate challenge” problem, and how, given the current political situation in the U.S., he thought we might make such implementation a political reality.
But to return to Roger’s specific question,
Scott wrote: “Certainly Gore’s presentation,
which I attended, did not convey any sense to me
that he was advocating or playing this fact-value
split at all. Quite the opposite. If anything he
was calling for that split to be repaired.”
Roger wrote: “Please explain, Thanks!”
I don’t remember the exact language Gore used, but his main challenge to scientists (to more actively communicate their “inconvenient truths” to the public and to policy makers) was clearly set in the context of a broad cultural analysis which was rooted in the problem of “the two cultures.” (he attributed this to Whitehead, but I understood it as a reference to C.P. Snow’s characterization of the divide between scientific and humanist ways of thinking and acting). Corrosive/destructive divisions of this sort were a theme of his talk, and were attributed in part to the neurology of the brain (emotions/alarm/action centers in amygdala vs congnitive/rational centers in the cortex), and in part to the impact of television on our civic culture (promoting a separation between politics as active civic engagement, and as just another form of passive entertainment in which passive “opinion” was the main metric).
In this broader context, it would be a mistake, in my opinion, to interpret his message to scientists as just another example of the is/ought fallacy. The more suitable interpretation, I think, is that he was calling on us scientists to do what we could, from our side of the divide, to repair the breach, to bring not only our science but our civic engagement as humans, into the public arena.
I am not sure whether I entirely agree, but at least, that’s how I saw what he was saying.
Best,
Scott
December 16th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
David B. -
You write: “it doesn’t necessarily follow that communicating the political implications of scientific research obligates the researchers to give their policy recommendations.”
I agree with this. But what is it that qualifies a scientist to communicate political implications? The same might be asked in regard to “broader impacts” claims required of NSF grant applicants.
Gore did not get into specifics on this, so it is difficult to say that he “made the leap” as you suggest. Also, it’s difficult to intuit just what he means by “implications.” We often see arguments on this blog for the communication of policy options. How does this compare with the communication of political implications? we could certainly argue the semantics of this, but it wouldn’t give us further insight into just what Gore was calling for.
December 16th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Dave-
Let me offer an unsolicited 2 cents on your question to Ryan.
If indeed Gore was encouraging scientists to discuss “political implications” of their research, then he was at the wrong meeting. He should instead be taking to political experts, not climate experts. In fact, he is far better positioned to discuss political implications than his audience was. While encouraging the politicization of science is not necessarily a bad thing (remembering that politics is how we get done the business of society), encouraging the AGU membership to politicize science is something that requires some care.
Thanks!
December 16th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
Hi Ryan and Scott- I think the reference to enlightened reason was a certainly a reference to Gore’s opinion that the enlightenment and the changing of society around that time was an improvement for the better- I’m not sure I remember exactly but I believe he referred to the end of feudalism, and the rise of secular institutions, etc. as linked to a general democratization of society, access to knowledge being one cause. He certainly held up science as one major improvement, but I agree with Scott that he seemed to be appealing to more integration of science with other activities of our culture. It wasn’t as black and white as saying that science is the ultimate authority, at least as I remember. I also agree with Scott that the speech was short on specifics of what to do, and so was his movie. I overhead another conversation where some communication experts were disappointed that he didn’t give them specifics on improving communication…My feeling was his intent was definitely to rally people, not to given them specifics. Might be disappointing for some, but I guess more in character for a politician?
December 17th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Roger,
Back to your “deficit model” question: I am not familiar with the social science literature on this, and I am sure that there are insights there from which I would benefit, but I have no doubt that you are right that some scientists and politicians espouse a view of the relation between public understanding and policy action that is highly caricatured.
However, I think your question mostly misses the point:
You wrote:
“Do you really think that if the public really understood the complete details of the IPCC that they’d change their political views and behavior? Any evidence for this?”
The point is not that the public needs to understand the “complete details” or needs a more sophisticated knowledge base. I am concerned, at bottom, about two things in this arena:
(1) if the Pew poll is right, the public does not grasp the policy relevant science fundamentals: that human emissions are causing global warming now, that this problem will get much worse in the future, and that early and sustained abatement actions can substantially address the problem. The “complete details” do not matter nearly so much as these fundamentals. Here the science is compelling, and highly policy relevant. That there is some background natural climatic variation is true, but not very relevant to the policy. (the background variation does not constitute a trend towards, in Hansen’s memorable phrase, “a different world”; human climate change does).
(2) If the Pew poll is right, the public intensity of support for policy action on climate change, through broad, is shallow. This makes it a non-factor politically for those (like the current leadership) who want to do little or nothing. If the lack of intensity is attributable in part to confusions about the fundamentals (i.e. belief that climate change is mostly natural, or that the scientific community does not understand it very well), then it seems to me that a more widespread understanding of the fundamentals (not the details) could make a difference.
An issue of this magnitude needs more than broad support expressed in public opinion polls, it needs a campaign for action. There are many aspects of such a campaign, but one of them is surely a common perception that shared values are at risk. Global warming puts at risk environmental values that polls show are widely shared by the American public, but if Pew is right on point 1, the public is confused about the fact that changeable human activities are what is posing the risk.
Best,
Scott
December 18th, 2006 at 6:14 am
Seems to me Hansen and Gore have done their parts to
mis-inform the public.
Hansen for his stating on television the absurd idea
that half the species on the planet could go extinct from CO2 warming.
Gore for indicating that glacial CO2 temperature
correlations are significant to current times when
well read scientists know that temperatures led CO2
and that it was more likely glacial circulation
than temperature which modulated CO2.
December 18th, 2006 at 7:34 am
Based on reading the news story and most of the comments thereon, I have three observations not yet presented by others:
1. For a modern-day Man in the Iron Mask, Hansen sure gets around, and in front of a lot of microphones.
2. If Gore truly believes what he says, then he will not allow democratic politics to interfere with his mission. If activist-scientists can persuade the public to accede to his and their policy leadership, so much the better. If not, then democratic politics must be sacked because saving the Earth is inestimably more important than preserving democracy.
3. Public support for action on climate change is premised on each of the following assumptions about policy:
(a) WHAT “MUST BE DONE” IS NOT CLEARLY SPECIFIED. Support for action dissipates the clearer advocates are in specifying the nature and practical consequences of proposed action.
(b) IF IT COSTS A LOT TO ACCOMPLISH “WHAT MUST BE DONE,” SOMEONE ELSE WILL PAY FOR IT. Polls do not reveal willingness to pay on the part of the respondent. At best, they reveal the willingness of the respondent for someone else to pay.
(c) “WHAT MUST BE DONE” WILL NOT GET IN THE WAY OF MY STANDARD OF LIVING. Like recycling, people are willing to make token sacrifices in pursuit of environmental purposes. Few will accept a 40% reduction in their energy use.
Does anyone who follows Gore more closely know what specific policies he recommends, and whether those policies are commensurate with his characterization of the magnitude of the problem? Offline replies are welcome.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
Roger (and the Ryans, since I think this will connect to your comments as well),
I think we’re talking about different things here. My questions are informed by a recent development in tech policy that’s perhaps better as a separate post.
What I was thinking when talking about addressing political implications is to say that certain policy recommendations or research conclusions would have particular political implications or have a particular political impact (group x or Senator y would oppose implementing something or disagree with the conclusion).
I think (and could very well be wrong) that suggesting a political impact of a research conclusion isn’t necessarily the same thing as advocating a political position from the strength of a research conclusion. In my mind, the former is adding a degree of analysis to the problem, the latter is working the wrong side of the is/ought problem.
I think the connection Ryan raised between the broader impacts criteria and scientists considering political implications is interesting. Personally (and perhaps colored from my having at most one foot in academe), I think researchers at least acknowledging broader impacts (whether societal or political) shows a level of self-awareness that would be encouraging. The care that must be taken is to talk in terms of possibilities rather than requirements. Saying that these things could happen is different from saying that they will, should or must.
And no, none of this will help us get at Gore’s intent with his remarks, but it still raises useful issues.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Sorry Scott, we don’t know that the sky is falling. You state “the background variation does not constitute a trend towards, in Hansen’s memorable phrase, “a different world”; human climate change does”.
It could, but nobody knows that, because of feedback unknowns. Sometimes people too close to the work can’t see the forest from the trees.
Plus, returning to the temperature trajectory from the MWP peak to the LIA valley when anthropogenic effects potentially started making a difference could be more of a detriment.
What is optimum? The temperature when the Luddites were demonstrating? How about the average over the last hundred thousand years? Maybe what has typically been described as the Holocene Maximum, aka the Climatic Optimum?
December 18th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
“That there is some background natural climatic variation is true, but not very relevant to the policy. (the background variation does not constitute a trend towards, in Hansen’s memorable phrase, “a different world”; human climate change does).”
Does James Hansen or anyone else think it won’t be “a different world” in 2100 compared to 2000, even if there was no climate change at all?
Virtually all people in 1900 would never have seen electricity, an automobile, or an asphalt road, let alone radio, TV, air conditioning, a computer, the Internet, a mall, a microwave, etc. etc.
And the changes from 2000 to 2100 are likely to absolutely dwarf the changes from 1900 to 2000. Human-machine cyborgs (or even no bodies at all). Immortality. Sufficient wealth that no one need ever work a day in their life.
To think that it wouldn’t be absolutely trivial in such a world to produce whatever CO2 concentration was desired doesn’t show much appreciation for humans’ (or successors) ability to manipulate the environment.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Steve — I am not sure what you mean by “the sky is falling”, so it’s hard for me to say whether we know it or not.
But we do know with high certainty that human activities are already changing climate. The high-confidence attribution of even the very small amount of warming already experienced to partly human causes, is really a key recent step forward in the science whose importance is often underappreciated by lay observers. The amount of warming experienced so far is of course very small, but together with the inertia of the climate system, it tells us with high confidence that if we continue on our current path climate change will be much much larger in the future. In fact, we do know quite a bit (even if not everything) about the feedbacks, and the part we don’t know could just as easily make things worse as make them better.
As my colleague Dan Schrag writes in a Boston globe op-ed posted here on the thread about Congressional hearings,
“In public lectures, I show pictures of what would
happen to Florida and the Gulf Coast if half the
Greenland Ice Sheet melted, asking people to
imagine abandoning New Orleans and Miami. I tell
people that, unless we take action to reduce
emissions, the question is not whether this is
going to occur, but when.”
This is largely the nature of the remaining uncertainties we face: not if, but when. I can understand why you might want to latch onto the appealing hope that somehow negative feedbacks, a la Dick Lindzen’s high atmosphere water vapor feedback of 20 years ago, will rescue us. But the science has advanced a lot in the last decade or two, and it just doesn’t look like it is in the cards. Continuing to hold onto the “feedback rescue” scenario in the face of what we now know is a little like the Bush administration saying that it is going to win in Iraq: fond hope, but little basis in reality.
Best,
Scott