Leland Teschler's Editorial: Environmental Extremism is a Good Career Move

June 16, 2009

Readers interested in changing careers for greener pastures might take a hint from the World Business Summit on Climate Change which wrapped up recently in Copenhagen: Environmental alarmism is a growth industry. The meeting was basically a warm-up for negotiations to replace the Kyoto Protocol. Kyoto is a United Nations treaty that aims to stabilize greenhousegas concentrations in the atmosphere at levels that would prevent “dangerous interference” with the climate system.

But the Copenhagen meeting and Kyoto increasingly seem to have little to do with unbiased science and a lot to do with convincing governments to throw money at the green movement, regardless of whether the funds are wisely spent.

So argues Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and director of a think tank called the Copenhagen Consensus. He says speakers at the World Business Summit seemed to have been picked because of their scary views on global warming — though such views are outside mainstream scientific thinking and don’t mesh with the findings of the U.N. panel of climate-change scientists.

The nightmare scenarios outlined at the conference seemed to be proportional to the amount of money at stake. Lomborg points out that U.S. companies and interest groups involved with climate change hired 2,430 lobbyists last year and that 50 of the biggest U.S. electric utilities spent $51 million on lobbyists in just six months. Lomborg calls the partnership among self interested businesses, grandstanding politicians, and alarmist campaigners an “unholy alliance” and says we “shouldn’t be surprised that those who stand to make a profit are among the loudest calling for politicians to act.”

All the more troubling is that even moderate views on global warming rely on peer-reviewed environmental research that itself may be biased in favor of headline-grabbing conclusions. The problem is explained by Patrick Michaels, an environmental sciences professor at the University of Virginia, and Robert Balling Jr., a professor of climatology at Arizona State University. They point out that global warming science competes for public funding with cancer research, AIDS, and a number of other worthwhile efforts. Because scientific budgets are finite, an issue’s perceived importance determines how much funding it receives. The result is a culture, they say, in which any scientific finding that indicates a less-significant impact of climate change threatens researchers’ livelihoods.

And there is evidence that climate-science authors can stack the deck when it comes to the review process. Michaels and Balling cite a practice of the American Geophysical Union. The Union asks authors to provide the names of five people they think would be desirable reviewers. Authors can also submit names of people they think wouldn’t provide an objective review. Michaels and Balling conclude that, “When the writer can influence the selection of reviewers, peer review is pretty much dead.”

All in all, there’s money to be made by serving up apocalyptic global warming predictions, but at a social cost. Consider that framers of Kyoto proposed world governments spend $180 billion annually for measures that, at best, would reduce temperature by 0.3°F by the end of the 21st century. Says Lomborg, “The U.N. estimates that for less than half that amount, we could provide clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care, and education to every single human on the planet. The same warped sense of priorities will continue to bedevil us this December in Copenhagen.”

— Leland Teschler, Editor

Comments

I started looking into this

On June 29th, 2009 Anonymous (not verified) says:

I started looking into this a few years ago and I decided it is impossible to connect any public position (for, against, etc) to any real science. I took published articles and tried to follow them upstream to the source data to see if I would reach the same conclusions, and within a step or two the data always changed or disappeared.

It doesn't matter who says what - it's all politicized beyond any scientific credibility, so go with the position that makes you feel good, what reinforces what you already think, or what benefits you. The truth, whatever it may be, will happen regardless.

reply

"Extremism"

On June 18th, 2009 Charles Barnard (not verified) says:

I fall in to the category you describe--though I would not call it extreme, but prudent. The question is: Would you rather be prepared for climatic changes which arrive later than anticipated, or be unprepared when such changes arrive earlier than expected?

The "experts" are saying that we can expect 100cm sea level rise by 2100. The experts also have simulations which say that warming can cause an ice age, but they all say that it is "unlikely" although none say why they think that--the models are, after all, not real accurate but if you believe in your model, why deny something which the model says can happen? These experts have been "surprised" at the rapidity of change in the Polar zones. I find that it is yet another data point supporting the idea of a VERY rapid change--and geology shows that we have had MANY such changes in the past, with little or no reason to reject them now.

While sea level is a deceptively difficult thing to measure, it is apparent that the sea has already risen on the order of 10cm in the past decade--a linear extrapolation of this gives the 100cm/century estimate. But the individual factors which contribute to damage caused by climate change are NOT linear, but exponential. Glaciers melting makes glaciers move faster which makes glaciers melt faster. This is true of nearly every process involved. Adding to the confusion, much of the initial ice-melt on the planet has no effect on sea level, as that water was already at sea, albeit frozen on top. So we can expect a relatively long period with little or no change in sea level as the ice pack melts at the North Pole, then an abrupt rise in sea level as the Greenland ice pack melts (historically about 1 to 2/3 of the Greenland ice melts during warm periods, enough to raise the sea level by 3 to 5 m.) Coincidently, that 3 to 5 m rise is enough to raise the Western ice sheet, which sits on or replaces sea water, to float free of the sea bottom, which is what holds it in the South. Once floated, the sheet is free to move North and will melt. Again, this will not raise sea levels, as this ice is already part of the sea. It will, however, permit the land portion of the Western Ice Sheet to move more rapidly, which will cause more crevasses, faster movement and more melting. This will raise the sea level an additional 3 to 5 m. Note that because the geography of the planet does not have rigidly vertical sea coasts, the actual sea level change an d speed will vary--at time greatly, from the average. Also, in many areas a relatively small rise, 1m, can cause thousands of hectares to become inundated or poisoned by salt water. There are also several places around the world where, at one point or another, the sea will overflow into areas below sea level, which will slow or even stop the sea level rise until the area below sea level is filled.

As to extremism, we are long past the point where there is much we are going to be able to do to rapidly change the climate situation, and if we did, we do not know enough to accurately predict the results of most such changes.

To date, I have only found one project which could potentially halt or reverse the climate change within a few decades or less, and it is the only one for which we have pretty good evidence that it will work. Our climate became unstable 3 million years ago with the closing of the channel between the Pacific and Caribbean. Before that time our climate was stable for eons, since that time it has fluctuated between hot and cold, The major effect of opening that channel is the cooling of the Western Caribbean, which causes a cold current to descend and then move East, providing a circulation which moderates the water temperatures. The amount of cooling required is, at this point, unknown to me, as I have not yet been able to find someone willing or able to put a value to the process, but any cooling which brings the density down below that of the current surface water, will tend to start such circulation. Obviously, the more energy you can remove, the denser the water will become, and the more effective the process becomes. Under the previously existing natural channel, only surface water would move from the Pacific into the Caribbean, and while there is substantial difference in temperature between surface waters, if one goes deep enough to get to maximum density water (around 34F ) that water will have substantially less energy and will consequently be capable of more cooling effect/liter. The natural flow between the sides of the Isthmus of Panama is from Pacific to Caribbean, although the head is only 20cm, such head is more than enoughto move the water, and even enoughto generate power if the volume of water is high enough. By running a tunnel under the Isthmus from the surface in the Caribbean to the depths of the Pacific, very cold water can be brought into the Caribbean to lower temperatures and increase the density to begin circulation.

Such a tunnel would be the longest yet constructed. Such a tunnel also has the advantage that it does not have to support the mass above it completely, as it would be filled with water. it would be cheaper to build than current tunnels since it is not intended to carry traffic. Given that generators could be used to extract power form the flow and from the temperature difference, the importation of nutrient rich water could be used in fish farming. Thus, the project would be feasible on a purely economic level, able to pay for itself in electrical power and food production, even if it were to fail to modify the climate--and there is no reason to believe that it could not be properly designed to modify the climate.

We cannot make major short term changes by changing our energy production or usage, though such things are good to do. Geologically, there appear to be a limited number of possibilities. Most will result in massive damage to the ecosystem and human deaths. Things could fluctuate back to where they were a century ago. We could flip into an Ice Age or cooling period. The warming could continue until all ice has melted, leaving an unihabitable planet. The warming could destabilize the frozen methane hydrate along the continental shelves. The last time that happened the Earth become a fireball and nearly every land animal larger than a rabbit became extinct.

Of course, it is also possible that NONE of these will happen--but given the high cost of being wrong, can we afford to choose to ignore the possible threats?