Global Warming, Etc.

Despite the drop in sea ice this summer, it grew back in record time, up to 1979 levels: http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

*

I’m going to meander through this mine field again, partially in reaction to my reading about the “science court.” The climate change is precisely the sort of thing that could stand a good, direct discussion in an objective forum. Of course I’ve already mentioned the difficulties there: one side says, "The issue is already settled! We need to do something NOW before it's too late!"; the other side is saying, “Hold on, all the data isn’t in yet.” This actually requires two separate discussions, neither of which has yet taken place, to my knowledge:

• What’s going on? What is the actual data concerning climate change? Are we getting warmer or colder, and how much of that is related to human activity? What can be done to ensure that we have all of the necessary data? What experiments, if any, can be performed to verify particular theories?
• What do we do about it? Once we are clear on what’s actually happening with the planet’s climate, we need to give serious thought to what should be done—if anything. The idea of doing nothing doesn’t appeal to folks who prefer an activist government (liberals, neo-cons). The idea of taking drastic, expensive action with vast economic consequences probably won’t appeal to large segments of the voting public in the U.S., and other nations (China, India) might not participate at all. And what will the cost/benefit statement look like? Environmental activists bristle when crass “economic arguments” like that are used. However, costs and benefits need not be just a matter of dollar and cents. Why should large segments of human civilization be slowed down drastically NOW, especially if the payoff isn’t that great. Bjorn Lobmorg’s recent book on this issue deserves further attention.

In any case, until a civil and conclusive discussion or debate can be held regarding point 1, point 2 will always be problematic. Will our new president take this sort of caution to heart when he starts modifying U.S. environmental policy? I’m not particularly hopeful on the score, but the idea of a discussion is at least preferable to an enforced mandate from above.

Today's Suggested Reading

I've been meaning to post this for awhile: http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/definitions/. It's an article recommended by Darlene the Science Cheerleader on what, specifically, we mean by scientific literacy. I leave its implications as an exercise for the reader.

*

Another item that's been on my desk for awhile, but which I haven't had time to write about is the idea of a "science court," wherein the great scientific issues of the day would be decided by a tribunal of scientists who are NOT experts in the fields under discussion--i.e., you wouldn't have climatologists with vested interests deciding the validity of global warming claims--but scientists of sufficient experience, education, and merit to be able to make decisions more or less objectively. The court would deal specifically and only with the facts and theories of a particular discipline--i.e., which theory is more "correct"--not with their policy implications.

The more I read this article, the more dubious I became about the science court's prospects. Suppose, for example, the science court was televised. The general public, watching a very slick and impassioned presentation might think that that person had "won," whereas the scientists on the panel might have a completely different reaction based strictly on the data. Mightn't this sort of environment encourage claimants to "play to the gallery?" Or would the science court necessarily be a closed event?

Also, since Arthur Kantrowitz first proposed this idea, science has become even more politicized than it was in the '70s and '80s. Even scientists not directly connected to a particular issue more often than not have opinions on such things. But then I suppose the same thing could be said about courts of law, and yet we continue to have some faith in an unbiased judicial system.