climate change – Blog From A Hermit Dot Com

Much of the hoopla over the global warming controversy seems to be the “shocking revelation” that science is being used by (and thus ostensibly soiled and manipulated) by politicians. So? Science has always had a strong thread in and of politics, just like all other human endeavors, including religion. The only non-political human endeavor is probably solitude – and it’s only apolitical to the solitaire. As soon as one other wonders about or tries to find the hermit, his solitude becomes part of a political debate. All human interaction includes politics. The more people, the more complicated the politics.

Science as the ultimate objectivity has always been an ideal not a fact. Scientists are human, too – with mortgages and egos and tuition debt, too. Most research is at some level politically funded – whether the funder is the Catholic Church, the Exxon Corporation, or government. (We all know how apolitical government is. Right?) Who gets the money for what research – in our culture often a variable of potential profit in the research product – is part of the process. Unfortunately, money as the engine of research comes with a built-in corruptibility factor – sometimes very subtle, sometimes openly controversial, but rarely completely out of the picture. Which is worse: good science with bad intentions or bad science with good intentions? Add to that debate “whose science” and “whose morality” then define “good” and “bad.” Yeah, I know.

Still there’s good scientists (and some not-so-good) working hard in their labs zealously pursuing “truth.” There probably is even such a thing as “pure” science happening somewhere in some labs. But even the most ardent and disciplined objectivists among us are still subjective human beings. The process leading up to who gets a lab, how they design the experiment and who does what with any discoveries will always be a function of politics. The “science” that reaches the masses will always have spin. Most of the “masses” wouldn’t understand the science if you spoon fed it to them straight from the scientist’s mouth. I have great respect for Al Gore’s intentions. I voted for him when he ran for President partially because of his environmental stance. I have warmist leanings. I am not, however, blind to the inconvenient truth that Al Gore is not a scientist – he “just plays one in a movie.” But science without politics wouldn’t get very far.

And with well-established criteria for peer review and reproducible results, science tends to self-regulate. The global warming controversy really emphasizes the stability of the scientific ideal not its erosion. It’s the old torpedo effect of all human progress – we launch out of the tube in the general direction of our target, we stray off course, we make corrections.

Challenge and controversy have always been a part of scientific progress, whether the battle is between scientists and institutions, or scientists and other scientists. Today’s unavoidable transparency just makes the noise a lot louder and faster – out where we all get to watch and comment. And after all, it is science that brought us the internet – the vehicle of its own exposure.

Global warming (anthropogenic or otherwise) is a hard sell to anyone who’s freezing his butt off fighting the hardest winter he can remember. And though repackaging global warming as climate change is probably a wise move, it’s just human nature to let broader perspectives and scientific conjectures rest completely while coping with the immediacy of “what’s happening to me right now.” (If you haven’t seen Stephen Colbert’s recent comedy sketch about this, I highly recommend it. I particularly liked Colbert’s professor of peekaboo-ology.)

Climate change is almost a non-term here in Western Washington where the weather is so variable year to year, climate change seems almost normal. Unlike the rest of the Northern Hemisphere, we’ve just had our warmest winter on record. Last winter we had our taste of the ice age.

But in spite of recent controversies which expose some extremely-careless or just-plain-bad science, there’s some good science behind global warming, too. Weather extremes are integral to the theory, so discounting the whole idea because your butt’s cold today is definitely throwing the baby out with the bath water.

On the other hand, there’s some very smart people countering the theory and some very good science behind their counter claims. Ironically, the very reason we find global warming so hard to believe when our butts are cold mirrors the reason why global warming has rational skeptics. It really is difficult for us humans (including scientists) to stand far enough back from our tiny little lives to get accurate, objective perceptions. From a geological perspective, the global warming theory itself is just a report on what’s happening right now. Several decades of climate statistics do not necessarily make an arguable trend. Well, obviously it is arguable, but that’s not the same as provable.

But it’s the furor of this discourse that deserves applause. It means awareness of environmental degradation (whatever the cause) has whole-heartedly entered our public consciousness. A recent New York Times article pointed out that therapists are even seeing a trend in environmental issues as a significant cause for family discord. And as much I hate to see families in stress, the environmental dialog matters; and the things that matter most to us should be discussed (and sometimes argued about) in our homes. An integral environmental consciousness – public and private – represents true progress.

I have warmist leanings. There’s much more to the theory than whether you should be driving a Prius or a Hummer. But selling global warming as yet another variety of armageddonism is counterproductive and unnecessary. Extremes always create backlash. Most of the noise between warmists and their skeptics is not about whether humans are negatively impacting the environment, it’s about how, what’s the timeline and what’s the fix.

Anyone completely devoid of environmental awareness at this point is either under-educated, living in impoverished desperation, or choosing to remain intentionally blind. Lack of education and impoverished desperation are both forgivable, and illiteracy and poverty must be addressed as part a holistic environmental dialog. But intentional blindness, whether motivated by greed or just laziness, is no excuse at all.

But that’s another human foible, isn’t it – it often takes the noise of controversy to force our eyes open. It’s called awakening.

“When people generally are aware of a problem, it can be said to have entered the public consciousness. When people get on their hind legs and holler, the problem has not only entered the public consciousness — it has also become a part of the public conscience. At that point, things in our democracy begin to hum.”

- Hubert Humphrey