The world's scientists are struggling with the unsettling feeling that the more they talk about climate change, the less progress they make. In fact, in some opinion surveys they're losing ground. But before we start dumping on the public for its scientific illiteracy or unwillingness to take the long view, consider this scenario:
You're sitting in the doctor's examining room, on one of those absurd benches. The doctor comes in and gives you the worst possible news, that you have cancer.
The doctor takes the time to explain why she thinks you have cancer, and the level of confidence she has in the test results. She explains the biological process of cancer, what's known about how it starts and how it spreads. Don't let your senses deceive you, the doctor warns. You may feel okay now, but this disease will kill you if nothing is done, and we've got to start fighting this right now.
Then she walks out without telling you what your treatment options are.
This is essentially what the scientific community has been doing to the public about climate change. The scientific consensus that global warming is real and caused by humans remains unshaken, but the public consensus is fragile enough that it trembles based on a snowy winter or a set of indiscreet e-mails.
Scientists generally try to avoid making unwarranted assumptions in their work, but when they move on to communicating with the public, they repeatedly leap to a demonstrably false conclusion. As pioneering social scientist (and our colleague and mentor) Daniel Yankelovich points out, scientists persist in believing that if they just give the public the relevant facts, people will be able to sort them out, think through the policy options, and start making decisions.
In the real world, that's not what happens. Being inundated with information about a problem doesn't help people sort out different ways to address it. The public can and does come to firm, workable decisions, but the process takes a lot more time than most scientists believe. Information matters to the public, certainly, but other things matter too: values, confidence that the people advocating change understand and respect your point of view, a sense of inclusion in the decisions.
All those things aren't part of the classic "scientific" model of knowledge, but they are part and parcel of the way people make decisions about complex, unfamiliar problems.
Or, think of it this way:
You chase the doctor out into the hallway and ask, "But how do we fight this? What treatments are there? What choices do I have?"
The doctor leads you into another room. "Don't worry, the answers are all somewhere in here," she says. "Let me introduce you to the sales representatives of the radiology machine manufacturer and several competing pharmaceutical companies, who will try and sell you their solutions. Those half-dozen people over there are from the insurance industry, and they'll be having a parallel discussion of how much you can afford. We also have a wide selection of promising experimental procedures that will take years to develop."
"And if those aren't enough options," she continues, "these folks here are a spiritual healer, who will offer you crystals and a selection of herbs and spices, along with the owner of the largest leach farm in Louisiana. I don't really recommend you listen to either of them, but they'll both be shouting at the top of their voices during the entire process. Plus, they come up first in Google searches."
The scientific community -- and the climate skeptics, for that matter -- believes this is an information battle, and that with a few more charts and graphs, people will become lay scientists, and everything else will fall into place. That's not the way this is going to work.
So what does the scientific community need to do? We'd suggest three steps:
Connect climate change and the energy crisis. Obviously, these two things are connected, but too few people in the climate science world spell it out. World energy demand is projected to rise 40 percent over the next 20 years, mostly because of rising demand in developing countries like China and India. A billion Chinese buying cars and Ipods has enormous and obvious implications for both oil prices and climate change.
Step up to the plate as a credible, neutral explainer of the choices. This debate comes down to a few practical choices about how we get our energy. What kind of power plants do we build? What do we use to fuel our cars? Those are the choices people can grapple with. They're practical, not theoretical. You can sum up the pros and cons pretty quickly. These are our treatment options. And they're decisions society will have to make. Unfortunately, neither the media not the political leadership has taken on this task. This leaves a void science can fill. The scientific community could serve the nation by helping Americans understand our options for addressing our energy and climate challenges -- no spin, no hyperventilating -- just lay out the choices with their pros and cons.
Don't ignore economics. Believe us, nobody else is viewing this as a purely scientific debate."How much will this cost" is a perfectly legitimate part of the discussion. So are the economic benefits of moving to alternative energy, and the potential costs of doing nothing and letting climate change and energy shortages reshape our planet. If there ever was a case for an interdisciplinary approach, this is it.
This all comes back to one of the fundamental roles of the scientist in society: not just to find out the facts, but to explain what they mean to the rest of us. If the world fails to solve this problem, it won't be because we failed to understand the diagnosis. It'll be because we failed to understand our treatment options. We expect doctors to help us understand and weigh those options, and to respect our right to make the final decision. It's only fair to expect climate scientists to do the same.
Follow Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheEnergyBook
Science is a method for learning more about the world. Some scientists are environmental advocates, for good reason, but it is ridiculous and, as RoySV has already said, intellectually lazy to expect the entire scientific establishment to abandon their professional methodology and begin communicating in the style of policy advocates.
That is YOUR job.
1) 2010 - 2020: first 30% reduction requires basic birth control and individual/institutional conservation. That means eating 2/3rds less beef (carbon-equivalent to driving 1/3rd less miles), use power strips to short phantom current, phase out tungsten filaments and gas guzzlers. Phase in white roofs in sunny climes, caulking/weatherstripping, programmable thermostats, heat pumps, TELECOMMUTING, etc., all very cheap to implement
2) 2010 - 2030: The next 20% requires full-scale wind energy deployment, over a 20 year period, with solar, wave, tidal, and geo filling in to help a smart grid. At 25% utilization and $2M per 2.5 MW peak turbine, that's ~$3.2 billion per GW wind farm, about 1/3rd of a nuke plant. Offshore farms run about double that. If residential photovoltaic gets cheap enough - well, GREAT. Meanwhile, electric autos, much higher efficiency appliances, and near zero energy homes and high rises, along with high-speed rail, cellulosic ethanol, algae fuels, start phasing in.
3) 2030 - 2070: Final 50%. It'll take a minimum 20 years to begin deploying advanced nuclear power - i.e., liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTR). They burn existing rad wastes, are proliferation-resistant, have zero-meltdown potential. Traveling wave design eliminates reprocessing exposure to workers.Thorium is plentiful, far cheaper to mine than uranium.
We could get ALL our power from Nuclear at a much lower cost than getting 25% of our energy from Wind and Solar.
To get ALL of our electric from Nuclear we need 300 new plants. We will use the highest estimate of 8 billion per plant.
300 plants times $8,000,000,000.00 = $2,400,000,000,000.00
That is 2.4 Trillion dollars. But nuclear plants produce power for 50+ years.
So we would be spending only 48 Billion per year as opposed to 2 Trillion per year.
The cost of 300 nuclear plants over 50 years would be just $120.00 per American per year.
But even better, we are going to use a standard design so the real cost will be much lower.
Dr Chu, Obamas Energy Czar, said “the new generation of nuclear reactors will be significantly safer than those built during the 1970s because of improvements in technology. This time around, the industry and regulators have streamlined licensing and are planning to use a standard design.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/16/obama-nuclear-plant-presi_n_463754.html
And you have provided no data whatsoever on the cost of wind and solar power. Pulling numbers out of corporatist propaganda, which is why you are not citing your sources, is fooling nobody.
A reader interested in the facts should look here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research
The huge majorities of so-called “deniers” are not really saying it is ok to put more and more CO2 into the air. The real problem is that every solution offered to them costs more than they can afford. They understand that the whole purpose of a “carbon tax” or “cap and trade”, just as proponents do, is to raise prices on current forms of energy so new forms can compete. They read that many of these new forms of energy are many times more expensive that coal, that means electric bills many times higher. They are hearing about a future where they cannot afford energy, that’s too hard to contemplate, hence the denial. All the science cannot convince them the consequences of putting CO2 in the air, is worse than a future they cannot afford.
And for the Al Gore side who love point to France and say SEE, the French only have 1/3 the carbon footprint per person of an American, so we should do better. Then turn around and fight any new nuclear plants in the US. Obama’s DOE Head Dr. Chu, said wind and solar cannot supply over 20-25% without storage.and cost 5 times more. And unlike Al Gore, Dr Chu is a PhD in PHYSICS and a Nobel Prize winner in PHYSICS, Google Dr. Chu’s many interviews. It's NOT “Coal” or “wind/solar”, it’s Coal or Nuclear, with some "wind/solar".
Here is another issue to think about when it comes to the issue of scientists and their ability (or according to the authors, the inability) to get the facts and solutions communicated to the public.
That issue is how the major television media (where the vast majority of Americans get there news) present the information on global warming. Do they interview 100 working/publishing scientists for every quackpot GW denier with pseudo-scientific credentials? That would actually reflect the real world of AGW scientific discussions. NO they don't. What they do is give the AGW deniers EQUAL time with credible scientists and then ask the credible scientists to engage in a heated debate on the nonsense being spewed by the deniers.
That understandably leaves TV viewers with the idea that half the scientific community is not in consensus about AGW and what to do about it. Polls shows that this is true in that most of the general public think that scientific opinion on the existence of AGW is split.
So maybe the authors of the Huff post article can somehow enlighten us on how these so-called communication-challeged scientists can get the words out to the public when the most powerful national news media make them constantly wrestle in ridiculous verbal fights with AGW deniers.
A couple of points:
1. Doctors are service providers, they are not scientists. We need scientist in the lab and writing research results for publication.
2. What happened to journalists? Solutions are available and could use further amplification by professional writers.
3. This article feeds the American sense of lazy entitlement. We can't really do anything (especially not sacrifice) because we haven't been wined, dined, flattered, and seduced.
4. If the scientists produced more material, more books, more blog entries, more seminars, who would attend and who would feature the event in the news? Answer: nobody because the populace, especially in the US, are spoiled, lazy, entitled brats.
5. Scientists and activists are limited by the corporate media. James Hansen has put his feet on the ground to protest dirty coal and dirty coal mining. How big a media splash was that? Answer: it was piddle. (same, by the way, for efforts to stop the invasion of Iraq). The media is largely the problem
5. It's not complicated. Reduce carbon emissions: save gas, stop burning coal, insulate your house, reduce consumption. Do something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus
The majority of scientists agree that global warming is caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 75 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the International Union for Quaternary Research, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.
If you are going to deny AGW then you need to serve up some credible evidence, some peer-reviewed scientific literature. Fraudulent signatures, signatures from dead people, signatures from non-credentialed folks posing as climate research scientists, and signatures from people who did not agree to have their signature, on a GW denial statement is ridiculous and petulant.
One can't dismiss the fact that 97% of the scientists have a consensus about GW.
This article asserts that all the world's scientists are struggling over communicating about catastrophic man-made global warming. This is clearly not the case.
Many scientists are busy publishing scientific articles that previously were supressed by the climate scientists at CRU, or others. These scientists are publishing reports that often directly conflict with the findings of the 2007 IPCC report.
The world will judge whether these scientific papers are more credible than the conclusions in the 2007 IPCC report, which were often loosely supported by articles in environmental organisations.
It is the "scientists" at CRU who are struggling, not the large majority of working scientists.
"Many scientists are busy publishing scientific articles that previously were suppressed by the climate scientists at CRU, or others. These scientists are publishing reports that often directly conflict with the findings of the 2007 IPCC report."
Like the polar bear is not becoming extinct.....
The Arctic sea ice extent has just reached a five-year high.....
The earth's temperature hasn't experienced any statistically significant warming in fifteen years....
Those Himalayan glaciers aren't going to be gone by 2035......
The sea level along the west coast of the continental U.S. has not increased since 1998......
CO2 levels in the atmosphere have continued to slowly rise......
Bu that requires understanding chaos theory and positive feedback loops, thanks to our conservatives continuing war on Enlightenment of the people, I don't think most of the citizens of the USA understand these ideas. Hopefully, they do, or will learn about it,
everyone should try to understand
Chaos Theory.
It is the first theory to allow modeling of ecosystems and generate similar results, but with the "mode switching" behaviors typical of natural systems,
Chaos theory is part of the math behind fractals.
fun stuff.
Communicating should be in the hands of communicators; for that to happen, we need to treat the energy crisis and climate change as a serious, relevant subject and provide information (like the subjects addressed in this post) in a way the public can understand. That doesn't mean that the forces working to convince people that climate change is not an issue will give up. But at least we will have right people disseminating the correct information and doing their jobs as journalists. Scientists shouldn't have to do it all. This fight isn't merely theirs; it's everyone's, and we all should play our roles.
-Haley
thegreenmileage.wordpress.com
I am just wondering how many peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts reflecting decades of research, conferences, symposiums, media appearances, newspaper articles, periodical articles, op-eds, and specialized committee work are enough for you 2 authors to think that scientists are doing enough.
Have you 2 even read the entire set of IPCC reports. That would be a good start and it would be a drop in the bucket of the published research.
May I remind you that climate change science was either dismissed or actively suppressed for almost a decade under the recent Bush-era policy makers, beholden to big energy companies, at the highest levels of government.
To equate the climatic scientific community with a physician who walks out on a patient before explaining the best solutions for treatment for their ailment, does not in any way, compare to the actions of scientists who are working on GW issues. In fact i find the scientists involved in climate change research to be some of the most ethical and hard working people I have had the honor to know and work with (and most do it for salaries that are a pittance in comparison to energy company executive salaries).
Oh!
Bush, as horrible as he was, stated in his second SOU address that "a child born today will in 20 years be driving a pollution free hydrogen fuel cell powered electric vehicle"
Obama appointed the Nobel Chu to DOE and within 25 days he chopped all government funding for hydrogen fuel cell R&D projects. Thankfully, the Senate later not only restored that funding but increased it as well.
Now there were hydrogen fuel cell cars at Copenhagen as was there a fuel cell ship in the harbor but neither Gore or Obama would take a ride on them.
Norway has a hydrogen highway, Vancouver has a hydrogen highway complete with 20 fuel cell electric buses.
But the oil cartels are not installing hydrogen gas pumps on there service station lots and are preventing the release of the hydrogen economy that would solve all the problems of your so-called scientists.
Then, those scientists would have time to split the hydrogen atoms off of the water molecule in real time to drive the final nail in the oil cartels coffin.
Water might begin to replace oil in the not-too-distant future.
Future cars can become substantial power plants when parked, ending any need to build coal or nuclear plants - demonstrating that there are far less expensive alternatives to all fossil fuels.
See the articles at: http://www.aesopinstitute.org
To read about about water as fuel, see the “hydrinos” story at: www.american-reporter.com
Scientists understandably have a hard time accepting the claims of radically new science. More laboratories must repeat the experiment published by Rowan University, also successfully performed by GEN3 Partners, who advise Fortune 100 firms. One of the national labs would be a great venue. They should also design their own, definitive, experiments.
As new technology, using water as fuel, is demonstrated and reaches the market, it will become increasingly difficult to ridicule, ignore or deny.
Following the Pearl Harbor attack, within a few months bombers rolled off the assembly line at Willow Run every 59 minutes.
A few radically new technologies are inherently far less complex and extremely cost-competitive.
Imagine what a 24/7 development program could accomplish!
The report (TechnicalPresentation021710.pdf) on http://www.american-reporter.com/ is just a lot of rehashed publicity showing spectra results easily explained by crystal field theory. When science is not on your side (you can do a lot of fancy math and hand-jiving but Mother Nature has the last say), appeal to authority and bring out the celebrities: "The company has assembled a formidable board of directors that include a former head of Westinghouse, a top federal nuclear energy official, ..." The American Reporter is another left-wingnut rag. Show us something from, say, National Science Foundation or the American Physical Society.
Garret Moddel from colorado.edu have debunked all this ZPE wet dreams in his paper "Assessment of proposed electromagnetic quantum vacuum energy extraction methods"(xxx.lanl.gov). Unfortunately for himself, who has a US patent “Quantum vacuum energy extraction,” Patent 7379286, he did not understand the physics of EM surface waves on
Casimir tubes; thus his scheme is worthless. After exchanging a couple of emails, Moddel admitted his patent was a mistake. Sensible people becoming silly.
As I said before, I emailed Rowan. The faculty at Rowan were tight-mouthed and referred me to Black Light Power for any discussion. They are backing away from BLP claims that they confirmed hydrinos.
A week ago I emailed Blacklight Power to tell me what is the half-life of hydrino and what is the price for 1 gram of hydrino gas. No response.
Some bloggers have linked our patent to Blacklight Power's hydrino. I cannot comment on whether the concept of a hydrino is valid, but the physics behind it is certainly different from the physics that supports our concept.
However, there are some blogs you or Roarty have not commented yet. I will not give the URL's (you need to do the work), here are some unanswered comments:
Comment 1: I can't help but chuckle at them using NMR to back up their claims. Our understanding of NMR is heavily dependent upon quantum mechanics...which according to the blacklight theory is incorrect? Little bit of cognitive dissonance anyone?
Comment 2: OK. There are quite a few issues here. First off, they claim the smaller electron radius of a hydrino hydride gives GREATER chemical shielding. So why is it deshielded relative to "normal" hydride? Article (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja062419g) giving some NMR data for an iridium hydride.
Comment 3: I agree, but I think you're underplaying the "assuming all their calorimetry is right" and "eliminated mistakes" steps. The first thing I'd do with anomalous results in anything that demanded highly accurate measurements of heat would be to call in an expert in calorimetry. Especially if I needed those heat measurements to justify an extraordinary claim. The "cold fusion" folks tripped over this as well, way back when - it's nowhere near as easy as it seems.
Regards
Fran