Extreme Politics

Edge 219

In the modern world, science and society often interact in a perverse way. We live in a technological society, and technology causes political problems. The politicians and the public expect science to provide answers to the problems. Scientific experts are paid and encouraged to provide answers. The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, “Sorry, but we don’t know”. The public prefers to listen to scientists who give confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen as a result of human activities. So it happens that the experts who talk publicly about politically contentious questions tend to speak more clearly than they think.

I just watched Extreme Ice on Nova, in which "an acclaimed photographer teams up with scientists to document the runaway melting of arctic glaciers." The episode was half good (and all bad) at explaining the science of glacier melting (if I may call it that). However, it excelled at illustrating the wisdom of the above quote by Freeman Dyson. The show was a saturated in, and ruined by, the politics of global warming. It was full of scientist "who speak more clearly than they think." That's the way they were presented by Nova. In a one hour show, I heard one guy speak of his "hypothesis" (that warm ocean water was speeding the "calving" of icebergs from glaciers), and, though he sounded mighty sure of himself, he at least used a word that acknowledged the possibility of error. The others, as presented, barely gave a nod toward "doubt."

Freman Dyson went on to write, "As a scientist I do not have much faith in predictions." Well, this show was chalk full of predictions, from the ridiculous to the sublime, extending out a hundred years and beyond. If you believe this show, we really need President Obama to sweep back the Oceans rising waters.

I said the program was half good and all bad at explaining the science, and perhaps I should explain what I mean. They often used the phrase "the last thirty years" when discussing the time frame of the "runaway melting." This period corresponds roughly with the end of the last "solar minimum," when the sun produces less warming rays, and the run up to the latest "solar maximum" -- when the sun produces relatively more. From about 60 to 80 percent of the increased warming during that period was likely caused by the activity of the sun, not the activity of man. And yet this was never mentioned on the program. To not address the effects of sunlight on a large body of ice -- to not treat it as a variable -- is bizarre. So no matter how good the science was on that program, it was all bad because it left the untidy bits out -- even the untidy data mountains.

These folks want us to spend 45 trillion dollars over the next fifty years or so and their approach would make hell's most vile use car salesman blush.