O O Ø O O O O
Straw Man
It was inevitable, I suppose, that having broached the topic of global warming delta-climate, I would have to deal with the knee-jerk response:
Your argument has an uncanny resemblance to various anti-vacination, anti-holocaust, anti-evolution, and anti-landing-on-the-moon arguments.
This, my friend, is a straw man. The argument in question bears no resemblance whatsoever to holocaust-denying, and if anything, it greatly resembles the main arguments for evolution: data, reproducibility, and the scientific method.
Let me preface this with the following statement, one I think we can all agree on:
- Kittens and moms are good.
- Pollution and littering are bad.
While it is nice to finally have some political movement on the second point, it doesn’t really do us any good if the science we produce to justify this position is bad. In fact, it could very well lead to disaster. The general population’s attention span is limited, and if they ever get the feeling they’re being spoon-fed a load of horse-patootey, they will tune you out forever—think Pons and Fleischman.
Inserting politics into science is a bad idea. Overly politicizing climate models, for instance, leads to measures like “per-capita CO2 emissions,” and solutions like carbon credits (where dumping tonnes of urea is not only a get-rich-quick scheme, it’s also the solution to our environmental woes). If the total amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere is a problem, boiling it down to a per-person statistic, (or dollar amount) doesn’t really solve the problem now does it?
A quick glance at the papers today tells me one thing: delta-climate is a one-variable problem—CO2 emissions. Now even from my cursory glance at the literature (or an ounce of common sense) says there ought to be a few more variables than that. What about the sun? What about particulates? Overly simplifying the model leads to bad predictions. Scientists should be screaming at politicians to consider the whole picture. Instead, they seem content to ride their one-trick CO2 pony.
Call me crazy, but I think the stakes are way too high to dither on this issue.
And I think you’re right—but doing something isn’t the same as doing something meaningful. If we were serious about getting a handle on the problem, our first priority would be to get a handle on measuring the problem. We would work to put up a pile of satellites and measure those variables we keep talking about: temperature, CO2, solar output, and so on. Ground stations don’t measure global averages—satellites do. Ground stations are affected by microclimates—satellites aren’t. Furthermore, there’s no point making changes down here if we aren’t monitoring to see if these changes are having the desired effect, because if they aren’t, we need to try something else.
Perhaps, just in the interest of prudence, we should consider interests that are other than economic for a moment.
There’s that straw man again. I haven’t even mentioned economics. I have no problem if you want to stop emitting so much CO2. I have no issue with wanting to stop vomiting toxic crap into our water supplies (a far more worrying concern, in my book). I think it’s probably a good idea to stop belching carcinogenic compounds into the air, and spraying them on our foods. My issue is when you try to justify these positions with bad science. Not only do you run the risk of “solving” the wrong problem, you risk losing the world’s attention in the process–and once that attention is lost, you won’t be getting it back until it’s much, much too late.
My friend, I’m a firm believer in Science’s ability to solve problems. That’s why I’m worried how it is being applied in the delta-climate debates. The very fact that even a modicum of critical analysis leads even my medically-trained, scientifically-minded colleague to abandon science for Straw Men is an indication that our debate so far is more about religion that it is science.
That’s a bad thing.
Kjell Wooding
November 27, 2007
OOØOOOODCCCXLIX
December 1st, 2007 at 1:04 am
A rant published in response to my comment. Errm … does this make me the new Yoda? Ha. Anyway, I’ll have to read this again in the light of day and compose a response when I’m thinking clearly.
Chris
Making Yoda New Again ™
Postscript: That ™ is purely artistic. Hopefully that doesn’t spur another rant.
Postscript 2: Can you please, given our years of friendship, edit my bone-headed spelling of anti-vaccination. It drives me nuts.
Postscript 3: I just submitted a residency application to a position in Calgary. There is a moderate chance (1 in 11 if I’m lucky) that I may end up back in your fair city. I think our first choice though will be to stay in the ‘Poo if I get the chance. Surprisingly Edmonton has the most well respected physiatry program in Canada. Who knew.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:57 am
Yep. You’re the new Yoda. I’m already preparing a rant about your gramer and speeling.
(Or maybe I’m just running out of material)
The ‘poo? Is that a veiled reference to Regina?
December 6th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Your preface statement lead me to reflect on your whole rant:
Kittens and Moms are good - assuming you’re not deathly allergic to its fur and she didn’t smoke crack during her pregnancy;
The problem with the ‘proof’ of human activities ‘negatively’ effecting the thermal environment is a proper frame of reference.
Your assumptions attempt to provide a baseline reference for what is ‘good’, similar to the argument that humans are solely responsible for the warming earth.
We understand that there have been ice ages and warming periods - evidenced by glacial moraines and the oilsands which were the floor of an ancient sea (how ironic). Why do we now believe that only humans are an influence to the temperature of the planet? How much CO2 was released when the tectonic plates shifted and caused the tsunami? How much when Mt. St. Helens erupted? Mt. Etna? To reference only a few very recent events.
Which leads me to the the minute amount of time that we have inhabited the planet and the number of freezing and heating cycles the earth experienced prior to our ‘influence’. Our humancentric view of our importance is blinding the real problem at hand. Our environment is changing, and we must adapt.
And we must stop toxifying our fresh water. A much more pressing concern, I agree.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Dr. Jimmy, I do not disagree, but I think you should read the original rant to put this one in perspective.