[From Bill Powers (951013.0630 MDT)]
Bill Leach (951012.2301 EDT) --
Just an aside on a mostly but not entirely irrelevant subject:
So, instead what the general public hears is some combination of
"scientist" that has either "sold his soul" to notoriety or is
really a master at grantsmanship -- or both. Like for example
Stephen Schnieder (global warming) that has openly admitted that he
has and does present as "undisputed scientific fact" information in
support of his theory that is seriously challenged (with the
ludicrous assertion that he does so because if his theory is right
then the consequences would be too dire to ignore).
Of course Schneider (whoever he is) does not own "global warming."
Global warming, as I understand it to be generally agreed among
scientists, is only a possibility, derived from the greenhouse effect
resulting from certain gases absorbing long-wavelength infrared
radiation while passing short-wavelength radiation. As in a greenhouse,
the short wavelength radiation from the sun passes through these gases
to the Earth's surface, heating the surface. The surface, being at a
much lower temperature than the sun, re-radiates heat at a much longer
wavelength, which happens to coincide with strong absorption bands of
gases like CO2. The glass of a greenhouse produces the same effect. The
temperature of the surface and atmosphere represents a balance between
heat gains from the sun, heat production on the earth, and reradiation
of heat into space from the earth. Just arguing from basic physical
principles, it is clear that any real increase in the "greenhouse gases"
in the atmosphere must increase the _mean_ temperature.
There is no definitive evidence yet that significant warming is
occurring. The signal, if any, is buried under local, seasonal, and long
term climatic variations that are far larger. There is somewhat stronger
evidence that the concentration of greenhouse gases is increasing, and
that the increase is produced by the burning of fossil fuels (trace
gases provide a marker of these sources). Again, however, any real
signal is small compared to the natural variations (due to large events
like volcanoes and the forest and brush fires that are always going on).
The problem that faces scientists is that global warming _will_ occur,
and _will_ have dire consequences, if there is a significant increase in
greenhouse gases -- but the amount of warming that would be dangerous is
too small for us to detect with any confidence on the basis of available
evidence. A rise in the average temperature of only a few degrees C,
which might or might not be detectable by our present methods, would put
New York and other coastal cities under water. Indirect indications,
such as a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration, can be detected
somewhat more easily, but still not with enough accuracy to make a clear
-- that is, indisputable -- conclusion possible.
The dilemma is how long to wait, how certain the indicators must be,
before scientists issue a warning of disaster ahead. On this, there is
obviously disagreement.
It's much the same dilemma that faces earthquake forecasters. This
forecasting is very poor, yet there are statistical indications that it
could sometimes get people out of danger areas before an earthquake.
However, false warnings will needlessly interrupt business, lower real
estate values, frighten some people into taking extreme measures, and
negate the effects of warnings issued for good reason. The most reliable
forecasts, such as they are, come only hours before a major tremor, when
it is too late to accomplish any major evacuations. So at what point
should the forecaster say "I predict that an earthquake will happen soon
in this area?"
The problem with global warming is even worse, because while we might be
able to do something about it if warned 50 or 100 years ahead of time,
the effects might be too large to counteract if we wait until our
measurements reach the level of absolute certainty -- if we delay our
warning until the earthquake is actually under way. We won't be able to
say "Oops" and just turn off the causes of global warming, should they
prove to be actually present. We're talking about a thin skin of
atmosphere which is in the same proportion to the Earth as is an apple's
skin to the apple. But it is, on the human scale, a vast system, far
beyond our ability to affect significantly in a year or two. Moreover,
what we would have to do to reverse the effect would involve immense
changes in the way we live, and the longer we wait the larger those
changes would have to be if they were to have any effect in mitigating
the disasters.
So now we can do a little PCT thinking. Why would somebody like Stephen
Schneider exaggerate what is known about global warming, making it seem
that we are absolutely sure it is happening when we are not? And why
would businessmen and others deny so vehemently that there is any
problem at all, any limit to growth, any reason to take precautions or
look for alternatives to burning of fossil fuels and doing other things
that increase greenhouse gases? Obviously each side is trying to
counteract the efforts of the other side to affect the way we are living
now, which consists of all the variables that all of us control. To each
side, the efforts of the other side are a disturbance, and when there is
a disturbance, each side pushes back. The greater the disturbance
becomes, the harder the pushing back becomes. So both sides find
themselves taking positions, or seeming to take positions, that are
grotesque exaggerations of their actual positions. It's just like the
disputes that we see on CSG-L: somewhere in the middle there is a
potential consensus on the matter under discussion, which in the end
will not be as extreme as any argument on either side would imply.
In a population, you will find people with all possible magnitudes of
error sensitivity, from just barely responsive to wildly exaggerated
hypersensitivity. We call the hypersensitive ones "extremists," and it
is the nature of conflict that any conflict will immediately bring out
the extremists, because they are the most sensitive to slight changes in
their controlled variables. They show up in pairs, one on each side of
any issue. They indulge in wild exaggerations designed, mainly, to
counteract the wild exaggerations of the other side. The people in the
middle, who have more ordinary error sensitivies, look on in puzzlement,
because they don't see anything to get so riled about.
So maybe Stephen Schneider is one of those hypersensitive ones, and the
counterdemonstrators carrying signs saying "Nuke the Environmentalists!"
are more of the same. Somewhere in the middle, presumably, there is an
issue that needs discussion, and generally it IS under discussion by
less extreme types trying to reach a resolution. While the right-to-
lifers are out harassing and killing people, and the pro-choicers are
throwing their bodies in front of motorcades, there are others trying to
work out some way of deciding when a living entity exists and thus when,
if ever, an abortion is a reasonable choice.
In the long run the extremists don't matter. Mostly, they cancel each
other out. All real changes are brought about by people with somewhat
broader ranges of control, who can tolerate differences without having
to correct every tiny error, and who are mainly concerned with
perceiving what is going on and finding effective ways of controlling
the things that matter.
···
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,
Bill P.