Is it possible to have a rational debate about energy today?
Do the odds for rational discourse on energy plummet when environmental concerns are thrown into the mix? (As if we could separate the two these days.)
What about the “science” of global warming?
Actually, you could spark a pretty spirited debate over the relevancy of the term “global warming” itself. The real point of contention among combatants on this hot-button issue isn’t whether or not the planet is warming but whether or not the planet faces a catastrophic level of warming caused solely by rising anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.
Before Al Gore’s Academy Award, Nobel Peace Prize, Humanitas Prize, Pillsbury Bake-Off Prize—or whatever other hosannas and accolades have been laid at the Internet Inventor’s feet for also inventing—uh, alerting us to—the climate change crisis, there was actually a debate over the “science” of anthropogenically induced catastrophic climate change.
No more. The debate is “officially” over, it’s said. I’m not sure which official or omniscient body has the power to unequivocally state that There is Nothing More to Argue About on the Subject. Oh, yeah, it was a Time cover story. Or was it Newsweek? Can’t really tell the two apart anymore, especially since some years ago they both decided that journalistic neutrality was a moribund concept. It’s a pretty short jump from that cover story to a pundit’s declaration that climate change questioners were on a moral plane equivalent to Holocaust deniers. Yikes.
Remember rational discourse on a political issue? Remember when scientists could respectfully disagree with each other without fear of being equated with history’s worst mass murderers?
Boy, those were the good old days, huh? Only I’m not so sure they ever existed. Or ever will.
Case in point: The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) conferred its 2006 Journalism Award on Michael Crichton, the uber-bestselling novelist of techno-thrillers such as Jurassic Park and Andromeda Strain. The award specifically cited Jurassic Park and State of Fear—the latter being Crichton’s novel about ecoterrorists resorting to all sorts of nasty behavior to terrify the public with a largely bogus series of catastrophic climate change-induced disasters in order to further their agenda.
This might have gone unnoticed had Crichton himself not testified before Congress on the topic of global warming, which ruffled some feathers in the climate science community. Now celebrity testimony is a time-honored tradition with Congress. According to a 2006 research report (http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/3/7/8/pages93788/p93788-1.php)
by Harry Strine, of the Department of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania at Bloomsburg, Pa., more than 400 celebrities have appeared as witnesses in 288 congressional committee hearings since 1969.
Considering that recent anti-energy development “expert” testimony on energy/environment issues before congressional committees has come from the likes of model Christie Brinkley and Kevin Richardson of the boy band Backstreet Boys, I have to wonder why anyone would get exercised over a novelist’s “expert” testimony on a scientific matter. (Maybe the fact that his novel had footnotes proved the tipping point…)
In any event, the AAPG was excoriated by others for its award to Crichton. Apparently, the novelist took some fictionalized potshots at climate researchers, which didn’t sit well with some of them who decided to publicly eviscerate both Crichton and the AAPG. The Council of the American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) said the award was “inappropriate” and said AAPG “crossed the line from scientific professionalism to political advocacy.” That was mild censure compared with what some pundits said about AAPG and the field of petroleum geology in general in the ensuing brouhaha.
I guess scientific “professionalism” allows room for questioning the integrity and fealty to scientific principles of other scientists. In its broadside against AAPG, AMQUA also took some potshots at US Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), impugning his ability to distinguish between fact and fiction. Isn’t such an attack on a politico a form of political advocacy itself when it is thrust into the midst of an ostensibly scientific debate?
This brings to mind some other questions that ought to enter the discussion:
* Is it possible for any scientist to be truly unbiased?
* When research funding decisions—and careers—hinge on policymaking, how pristine can the scientific method be, how objective the scientist?
* When scientists disagree, when does rejection of the “consensus” become heresy?
Remember, once upon a time the scientific consensus was that the world was flat and the sun and stars revolved around the earth. Even Galileo had to recant. The threat of torture and death does tend to concentrate the mind wonderfully.
AAPG defended itself on the choice of Crichton but wisely changed the name of the Journalism Award to the Geosciences in the Media Award. Not much being said about climate change at AAPG these days.
My good friends at AAPG would probably just as soon I didn’t resurrect this imbroglio, but a recent survey of AAPG members on the future of energy compelled me to revisit it.
The survey was conducted at the AAPG annual conference in San Antonio in April 2008 by Seismic Micro-Technology Inc., a supplier of Windows-based geoscientific interpretation software. The results are fascinating and include the observations that most geoscientists:
* Predict global “peak oil” by 2018.
* Think oil prices will top $150/bbl in 2013.
* See fossil fuels as a primary energy source in 2033, with solar and wind accounting for less than 10% of the energy mix.
The most fascinating finding in SMT’s survey was this: 37% of all survey respondents disagree that human factors are primarily driving global warming, but political affiliation polarizes opinion. Specifically, of those geoscientists surveyed, 57% of those who identified themselves as conservatives rejected the “consensus” view on catastrophic climate change vs. 27% of liberals.
SMT concluded that “geoscientists are a politically diverse group of people, with no disproportionate representation for any political party…However, their perspectives on controversial energy and environmental issues tend to correlate more strongly with their political affinity than their shared scientific backgrounds.”
Huh. Here are men and women of science, professionally trained in a rigorous discipline, and their views on a scientific issue may actually be tainted by their political leanings.
I’m not picking on geoscientists or AAPG members. I’d bet Al Gore’s home electric bill that similar results would be seen with surveys across all scientific disciplines. I wonder how AMQUA would score on the political affiliation/global warming survey.
Surprise, folks, scientists are not automatons, free of prejudices and conflicting desires for the “right” outcome. Just because something is peer-reviewed doesn’t mean it was vetted without bias. Sometimes research outcomes are pre-ordained, even unwittingly, because of the (sometimes lemming-like) herd mentality that is endemic to all humans. Sometimes the models fail, so the data need to be “adjusted” so the models will work. And there is that grant dangling over our heads…Or the prospect of tenure…
So the scientific method is an imperfect method because it is employed by imperfect beings, with all of their preconceived notions, prejudices, petty professional jealousies, worries about their careers, and political leanings.
So yes, folks, the tipping point on a scientific debate may be a magazine cover or an Oscar. And a lot of people may vote to foreclose their own energy future because Christie Brinkley thinks nuclear power is a Bad Thing.
In the hands of scientists, Science is not pristine. That may be the most “inconvenient truth” of all.
Or, as Crichton himself reminds us in the author’s notes at the end of State of Fear—no doubt, with tongue planted firmly in cheek:
“Everybody has an agenda. Except me.”
The SMT surveys can be found at:
Political Views of Geologists and Geophysicists [852 KB PDF file]
Geoscientists perspectives on the future of energy [941 KB PDF file]
November 7th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Hi Bob
I found your blog via a comment you left on http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/
In the above post, you ask, “[i]s it possible to have a rational debate about energy today?”
No. It is linked too heavily with global warming.
The debate was officially over according to Canada’s David Suzuki years before Gore’s film was out.
I think it was declared over in 2001 or 2002 since 2001 it was the third year in a row that was cooler than 1998. The measurements were not on their side, so they had to shut down the debate.
Oh, and apparently, because you admit that you have a link to Oil and Gas, any facts you mention must be wrong regardless of their original source. Sorry.
Moving right along, one fact that you do indeed have incorrect is that it was not Al Gore nor his cohorts that invented global warming. Us worrying about our impact on temperatures goes back at least to the 1960s, but likely a lot farther back than that.
Apparently, they will never learn.
The latest argument is that going through the journals of the late 60s and early 70s shows that global warming was mentioned more often than global cooling. That is one part of their proof of consensus.
It is ridiculous.
You asked a few questions. Here is my reply to those.
1. In my mind, it is indeed possible for scientists to be able to be unbiased as long as their pay cheque, and thus livelyhood, does not depend on them taking a certain view. This topic was politicalized long ago.
2. Even in studies where the data contradicts the AGW model, the conclusions still pay homage to the ‘consensus.’ All I do is I look at the data and develop my own conclusions. This has allowed me to keep the scientific method intact. Granted, there are some studies for which I cannot interpret the data, but the temperature ones are easy enough. Just like always, the responsibility still must rest with the reader of the study.
3. It is once the topic has been politicized, that any counter arguments are heresy.
John M Reynolds
November 7th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Thanks, John, for your insights and commentary.
I’m glad you raised the issue of certain “experts” being perceived as mercenary and having a conflict of interest, which always seems to land on the doorstep of the skeptics.
Yet no one seems to question the motives of the climate alarmists as anything but pure when in fact this issue has become a feeding frenzy for institutions jockeying for position at the trough.
We tend to forget that the initial IPCC report was a political document cobbled together by bureaucrats–and that many of the report’s contributors disavowed its executive summary conclusions and recommendations that departed from a scientific assessment in the bulk of the report that still acknowledged uncertainty.
As to the AGW modeling efforts, I think we need to add to Mark Twain’s litany: There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and computer models.
November 7th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
The modeling efforts are not even statistics though. They are just possible ’scenarios.’ The statistics are those based on the real measurements. Some try to evoke Mark Twain by suggesting that certain time frames can be cherry picked, but regardless of the time frame, the amount of background warming has not increased significantly. That is the rub. The background level of global average temperature, if there is such a beast, is difficult to separate from the multitude of various cycles that basically just contribute noise. It is so chaotic that to suggest a high degree of certainty about any possible future climate is ludacris. All anyone can say with certainty is that climate will continue to change. That does not stop people from guessing though. I even have put out a guess, but I give it less than a 50/50 chance of being right because it is too precise in its prediction. At least it was fun to put out a guess.
John M Reynolds
November 8th, 2008 at 11:44 am
One thing that may help depoliticize the climate debate could be a new finding that fungus can create a cleaner diesel fuel. I just heard, on CBC’s quirks and quarks radio program, an interview with Dr. Gary Strobel who is a professor of Plant Pathology of the Montana State University. He found that a fungus converts cellulose to hydrocarbon chains like octane. It is a myco-diesel which means diesel from a fungus.
John M Reynolds
December 17th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Big thanks.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
hello…
wow…