Ask A Scientist© General Science Archive

name         Christopher K.
age          20s

Question -   Recently I watched a 20/20 special by John Stossel called
Messing with Mother Nature.
I have never been so shocked by such open yellow journalism. According to
his "experts" the predictions of global warming in the environment were
merely environmental activism rather than environmental science. His
experts even claimed that
such a shift would even be good! Furthermore he went on to claim the
"we've never had it so good."
Our waters are cleaner than they were in the 1970's. (I do believe that
this is true due to the
EPA.) Since the 1920 there hasn't been a decrease in forest cover.
Drilling in the arctic has quadrupled
caribou populations. On and on he went. He and his experts claimed that
"man's effect on the
environment" has been relatively minor and all the proposed dangers are
exaggerations
by environmental activists.
I am a marine biology major. Everything that I have been taught or
have read casts a
gloomier projection for Earth's ecosystems. While I believe that the rate
of global
warming or humanity's responsibility for warming isn't conclusive. The SAR
for the IPCC does suggest an average increase of 2 or 3
degrees. The reponse of the environment has been also suggesting a global
increase in temperature i.e. more northerly migration of temperate
organisms (for example robins),
weight loss by polar bears, increased episodes of bleaching by coral
colonies, retreat of glaciers,
shifting of homes in the subarctic due to melting of the permafrost, etc.
Clearly this suggest that
global warming could not be beneficial. While I will admit that many
environmental groups
are exaggerating predictions by scientist, surely most of what we hear
comes straight from
the horses mouth so to speak and John Stossel's claims should not be so
rosy. How could any self-respecting
journalist or scientist make such swathing claims. My question is what
kind of scientist could make claims
that fly in the face of everything contemporary literature suggests? Is it
based of research and if so
where is the research that supports these conclusions?
------------------------
Christopher (a young) marine biologist,

The thrust of the environmental activists is to convince the public that human
activity is responsible for global warming. By your own honest admission,
"While I believe that the rate of global warming or humanity's responsibility
for warming is not conclusive." -- you realize that more research is in order
before we condemn human activity for every possible environmental problem.
Please recognize that the process of science and the machinations of politics
do not necessarily have the destination.

Very likely, -- for reasons of research funding and/or work contracts -- it is
in the interests of your professors and (possibly) your employer to convince
you that human activity is the enemy and the enlightened environmental
scientist is the savior.

The media -- with few notable exceptions -- feed public fears. Indeed, the
appalling scientific illiteracy of our populace is fertile ground for any who
wish to guide an indolent society too uneducated to care for itself.
Intellectual sloth has a very high price-tag when it comes to personal
responsibility and freedom.

May I suggest that you research professor Singer's perspective on the 
matter of
global warming. He is no lightweight in the field and his views contrast
sharply with the "conventional wisdom" to which you have been subjected.

Try to keep an open mind as you further your education in this matter. As you
well know, economic and environmental stakes are very high. We can ill-afford
to permit idealism to cloud rational judgment. Likewise, we do the global
community no favor if we allow ourselves to be convinced (without overwhelming
and incontrovertible evidence) that humans are the at the root of all forms of
environmental adversity. Indeed, we have meddled in the balance of nature.
Nevertheless, it is our responsibility as scientists (not politicians) to be
guided by rational thinking (not emotionalism) as we address the impact of
human activity on earth's ecosystems.

Regards,
ProfHoff  313
=========================================================
Your frustration about the accuracy of media coverage is understandable, and
we scientists have a responsibility to respond publically to these
distortions. The bottom line is that the "best available scientific
evidence" today concludes that global warming is a real and possibly
catastrophic phenomonon.

Will we ever be able to predict the effects of greenhouse gases in fine
detail, with all the "I's" and "T's" dotted and crossed?  Probably not, or
not before it is too late. But that is the nature of science. It must be
"refutable". Any given scientific theory must stand the test that it can be
developed, refined or discarded in the face of more data. It cannot, and
must not, ever have all the "I's" dotted and the "T's" crossed for then it
becomes dogma, not science.

Scientific disputes are not new, nor are they always the fruit of poor
journalism. In the late 1800's the existence of atoms and molecules was
denied by a whole school of physicists and chemists, led by Ernst Mach (as
in the speed of sound). They argued that since atoms and molecules could not
be detected directly by the senses, that they did not exist. Ludwig
Boltzmann, and others, argued that even though atoms and molecules could not
be observed (with the tools available at the time) their existence could be
inferred from the unity that their existence brought to physics and
chemistry. Boltzmann's particular interest was the kinetic theory of gases.
His analysis resulted in the famous equation relating entropy, S, and the
density of atomic/molecular states, W:   S = k*ln(W), where "k" is the
constant that bears his name. Mach's school of thought was demanding that
all the "I's" and "T's" be dotted and crossed, which of course at the time
was not possible. Such are the demands of the present administration in
Washington.

Note that president George W. Bush appointed a "blue ribbon" committee of
the National Academy of Science (NAS) to study the problem further (dot the
I's, cross the T's). The committee's report, recently published with unusual
speed, found that the great preponderence of the scientific evidence
supported the existence and dangers of global warming. It confirmed an even
more detailed recent analysis published by the United Nations. The speed
with which the NAS reached its conclusions is an indication that the
existence of global warming is generally accepted by experts studying the
phenomonon ( it's a no-brainer ).

All the evidence suggests that the administration is, and will continue,
ignoring these results. It's not what they wanted to hear. The commission
admitted that the details of global warming could not be predicted precisely
but were not in doubt in general. The administration chose to focus on the
uncertainty out of context, while ignoring the major conclusions of the
commission.

My point is this: The attitude, "This is what I want to hear, find
scientific evidence to support me." is not new. I personally don't know the
details of how "global warming" will shake out. No one does. However, study
after study appearing in the scientific literature conclude that it is real
and dangerous. It is foolish to ignore the evidence, but that is the world
of politics run under the influence of oil and coal interests.

See: "Science News" Vol. 159, June 2001, page 372 for details.

Vince Calder
========================================================
Hello,

With a few exceptions, one should not use TV programs or the mass media in
general as reliable sources.

These are primarily "store fronts" for companies in business to make money.
Hyping, shocking, exaggerating, omitting,
Fabricating, etc. are all part of the game to attract and keep an audience.
It is entertainment. For us, the public,
everything has to be fun or else we are not interested in it. Whether media
created this mentality or vise versa I
do not know.

Environmental issues are terrifically difficult and controversial.  They are
difficult because investigating many of
these problems is like looking for a needle in a haystack; it is extremely
difficult to come up with solid results in
the short run because the systems are complex, we do not understand them,
there are many parameters involved, and
there are cyclical events of various periods concurrently at work.
Environmental issues are controversial because they can have profound
economical, social, political, and philosophical implications.

Thus the water is very muddy providing a perfect opportunity for people of all
persuasions to have their say. One can
find anecdotal "scientific" evidence to support just about any point of view.
All a journalist has to do is to
choose one.

In time we will know a lot more about our environment.  For now, we ought to
be prudent, use common sense, and err on
the safe side if the cost is bearable.  Elimination of the use of CFC gases is
a recent example of where common sense
Prevailed.


--
Ali Khounsary, Ph.D.
Advanced Photon Source
Argonne National Laboratory
=========================================================
As you know scientists are "people" and there are good ones and bad ones,
some that operate on objective reasoning and others not so much so...as well
as journalists.  There is little doubt that among the great majority of
scientists global warming is a reality, with some differences as to the
extent and even less agreement on the ramifications.  A review of the
journal Science shows no articles that I have seen directly challenging the
idea of global warming...There are numerous articles, almost weekly, that
support the belief. As for the reporter you mention...I doubt if he reads,
or can understand, the research that has been published on this complex but
REAL problem.  But a lack of even a moderate understanding of such subjects
seldom prevents many people,  with the chance, from voicing their "expert"
opinions (ex cathedra).

Bene vale
Petrus F.
=========================================================