Defending Science May 7, 2010

Thanks to the Climate Progress blog for alerting me to the following (Climate Progress is, by the way, an excellent blog on all things climate change related).

Tomorrow the journal Science publishes a remarkable Lead Letter supporting the accuracy of climate science.  The must-read statement, “Climate Change and the Integrity of Science,” is signed by 255 of the world’s leading scientists. 

Here is the letter in its entirety (I have highlighted some items I think especially worthy), with my thoughts to follow:

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial—scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That’s what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of “well-established theories” and are often spoken of as “facts.”

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

Much more can be, and has been, said by the world’s scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business-as-usual practices. We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the un restrained burning of fossil fuels.

We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.

I don’t want to get too into the specifics about climate change here, as I am not a climatologist and only know what I do from following blogs and reading scientific publications.  What I do want to talk about is the impact the assault on climate scientists may have on other scientists.  For if we open the doors to attack a scientist’s character, morals and ethics, as if they were an elected public official or Hollywood celebrity, we discourage scientific inquiry and the dissemination of scientific information to the public. 

Scientists do not typically go into their careers expecting to grace the cover of Science or Nature magazine.  They intend to work in their labs, hover over their computer screens and teach undergraduate level courses.  They work for knowledge, not fame (or notoriety).  But now many are being dragged into what is deemed a “street fight,” where they have to defend their actions and findings with politically-motivated television hosts.  This is not unlike the brouhaha surrounding evolution, and not so unlike what happened to Galileo when he argued that the Earth was not the center of the universe (how did that work out for him, by the way? Oh yeah, he was put under house arrest for the duration of his life).  Going against a strongly-opinionated foe (the creationists, the geocentrists, the birthers, etc.) is not something the reclusive scientist relishes, but in today’s highly-charged environment it may become a necessity.

What can we, the general public, do to aid scientists in their quest for knowledge?  Why should we even care whether or not scientists are being grilled before a pseudo-Inquisition?  Because as I have written in previous blog posts, science is knowledge, and the more knowledge we have on a subject, the more readily we can find solutions to even the thorniest of problems.  We must support scientists at all levels to do their jobs and expand human knowledge.  We can appreciate our planet and the universe we inhabit by understanding as many of its intricacies as possible.  Those that want to block scientific inquiry for religious, political or economic reasons fail to see that scientific discovery can benefit all of those subsets and more.  Evolution shows us the beauty, resilience and diversity of our planet and its species, while reacting to climate change will create new technologies and jobs.  Those are all things that anyone, whether Democrat, Republican, or independent, can come to appreciate

I will leave you with one last thought, and yes it is a little more politically-motivated and climate change-based.  Dick Cheyney, certainly not a very liberally-minded thinker, once said that if there is a 1% chance of a terrorist attack you should act to prevent it.  Shouldn’t we also look at climate change under the same light, especially since the majority of scientific literature says that the chance of negative climate change impacts is many times more likely than a 1%?  Is it not better to be proactive than to suffer the consequences later, when it may be too late?

The Politics of Science March 31, 2010

I wanted to start this blog off with a quote from President Harry S. Truman that recently appeared in a Climate Progress blog. Truman was responding to McCarthy-era attacks that accused people of being Communists. McCarthyism now refers to “making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence” (Wikipedia). If you follow any of the climate change news out there, you can see that Truman’s quote is as timely now as it was back then…

“Continuous research by our best scientists is the key to American scientific leadership and true national security. This indispensable work may be made impossible by the creation of an atmosphere in which no man feels safe against the public airing of unfounded rumors, gossip, and vilification. Such an atmosphere is un-American…. Now and in the years ahead, we need, more than anything else, the honest and uncompromising common sense of science. Science means a method of thought. That method is characterized by open-mindedness, honesty, perseverance, and, above all, by an unflinching passion for knowledge and truth. When more of the peoples of the world have learned the ways of thought of the scientist, we shall have better reason to expect lasting peace and a fuller life for all.” (emphasis added is mine)

  

“A fuller life for all”; I like that phrase a lot.  To think that science can do such a thing is not so far-fetched. Think of how scientific breakthroughs have increased life expectancy, even in developing countries, through medicines, surgical procedures, prosthetics and transplantations.  Science has improved fuel efficiency of vehicles, created mechanisms for alternative energy sources, improved agricultural output and turned salt water into potable water.  It seems like the boundaries of science and how it can improve our lives are limitless.  Yet there are people out there right now that question science, or even go so far as to bash science and scientists, because of political ideologies. 

 

You cannot fully separate science and policy, like the separation of church and state.  For science must be used to effectively guide policies on health care, pollution abatement, endangered species protection and climate change.  While all of those policy areas can be contentious at times it is the last – climate change – that has been drawing much of the fire lately.  Congress is in the process of working on climate change legislation.  Whether or not you think that they should pass something like this, you should recognise the need for the application of science into their policy decisions.  For science is really nothing but “knowledge,” and our politicians should be knowledgeable about the policy issues that they are dealing with.  Unfortunately their party affiliation has a lot to do with whether or not they listen to science; whether or not they listen to reason.

 

Listen to certain media spokespersons on cable news channels and you may get the impression that scientists are wrong, that they are manipulating data, that they are lying to the public to push a certain agenda.  But why would scientists risk their credibility, their tenure at their academic institution and their major funding sources to further a cause?  Scientists value their standing in the academic and scientific communities more than just about anything else – their livelihoods depend on getting papers published, being asked to speak at symposia, creating something new through their research, etc.  Having their name attached to something that is untrue or false would be a death sentence to their scientific careers.  So I ask again, why would they make this stuff up?

 

The truth is, they are not making this up.  The evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of their findings and statements.  If you look closely at who is calling scientists liars it leans far to one side of the political spectrum.  I do not believe that political side hates the planet.  They want their great, great grandkids to be around just the same as the other side does.  But what I believe is causing the rift is the typical political squabbling that always happens between the two parties.  When one side says A is true, the other side says B is true, and no one will see eye to eye.  Unless we can find a few champions to bridge the partisan gap, our futures and the continuation of quality of life for all on the planet may be in jeopardy.

  

Change is scary to many, and certain changes can threaten people’s livelihoods.  But ultimately changes based on science, ie. grounded in truth and knowledge, will lead to better policy decisions and improvements.  This must be the case with climate change as with all policy issues on the table.  Economics are important, truly, but where will our economy if temperatures continue to rise, floods become more common, precipitation becomes more erratic and species continue to decline and disappear?  True, some manufacturers – of air conditioners, fans, boats, sunscreen, and insect repellant – may make out like bandits for a while, but others – of snowmobiles, skis and furnaces – may lose out, and much sooner than we might think.

  

My call to action would be for people to put aside their political leanings, whether ultra-conservative or uber-liberal, and think just in terms of science versus fiction.  I can’t speak for every scientist but those that I do know, I trust, and can say with certainty that they are not out to push an agenda.  They are simply out there expanding their minds and in the process hoping to expand others’ as well.  We cannot let the political party divide doom us to the dangerous and potentially irreversible effects of climate change.

 

  

 

 

Science isn’t Scary March 15, 2010

 I am a scientist at heart.  I studied zoology and environmental science in college, did some ornithology field work and now work on invasive plant issues.  Being analytic, methodical and fact-based really gets me going.  Yet the more time I spend talking with my significant other, familiy members, friends and the average person on the street I discover that my penchant for science is not shared by most people.  Science, in fact, scares them. 

I am not talking about science fiction.  I can understand why people may be frightened by the thought of intelligent robots taking over the world, Terminator-style, or that one day we will all be plugged into computers 24-7, never directly interacting with other people ever again, but science, real science? Well, it’s amazing!

The fear that many people have of science is their belief that science is “over their head.”  They envision every scientist being a bespectacled nerd in a lab coat, huddled over a beaker full of steaming liquid, pale as a ghost because he or she never leaves their lab.  These “egg heads” talk in science-speak, a language full of jargon and acronyms that could make your head spin.  How can the average person relate to that? 

Even some of the smartest people that I know pretend to be dunces when it comes to science.  It’s sort of like me with math – if I really tried I could do those algebraic calculations, but come on… that would require work! (Just kidding) How many people have I heard say, “My worst subject in school was science (followed closely by math – see a pattern?!)”?  Too many!  That intimidation factor has stayed with them over the years and sunk so deeply into their subconscious that any time they hear the word science they cringe and imagine themself back in 3rd period chemistry, struggling to figure out how much of powder x will go into liquid q to get a color change.  Erase that image from your minds, people!  There is so much more to science than intricate calculations, high-tech lab equipment and pass or fail grades.

I have created this blog to break down the myth that science and environmentalism are for a narrow segment of the population.  I want to decode science-speak and hopefully bridge partisan ideologies to show that science is understandable, invaluable and there for everyone’s benefit.  My career depends on getting people on-board the science wagon, but it is more than that.  I hope you will come to see that our very lives and well-being depend on science.  Without it, we would all be a bunch of Neanderthals grunting in an unlit cave, struggling to stay alive.  For science is really just “knowledge,” and who doesn’t want to be knowledgeable?