Is it time to embrace science to fix climate?
Iknow much less than Dr Stephen Jones about the physical sciences. He has a doctorate in physics from Vanderbilt University and I do not. He has conducted research at and around some of the most prestigious universities in the world. I, in case you were wondering, have not.
His most recent publication seems to be a paper published in Europhysics News in 2016. It is entitled 15 Years Later: On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses. The thing about Jones, you see, is that apart from research about muon-catalysed fusion, he is most known for his 9/11 trutherism.
Truthers doubt the accepted accounts of the infamous September 11 attacks. Some look to claimed anomalies in official timelines or unusual patterns of activity on the part of the various participants. Jones brings his scientific expertise to bear on the subject.
His view is that planes hitting the towers simply could not have produced the effects required to bring them down in such short order. Jones thinks the collapse is more consistent with a controlled demolition using explosives. He has, he says, conducted the experiments to show it.
I do not agree with Jones but, truth be told, I lack the knowledge and training to personally show he is wrong. His training is in science and mine is in history, law and political science. None of those is a science, including the last of them. The last time I had formal instruction in anything vaguely scientific was Mr Erskine’s geography class at St Peters College in 2003.
If Jones and I held a public debate on the science of building collapse before an audience of regular people I’d be crushed.
Does that mean that I’m wrong and Jones is right? I don’t think so. The view that the World Trade Centre was destroyed by explosives planted is very much a fringe view and few of Jones’ colleagues agree with his analysis. As a layman, the only thing I can do is assume the preponderance of expert opinion on the question is probably correct.
And so it is with climate change. Whenever I express my view that we should rely on the
scientific consensus that the world’s temperature is increasing and that our activities are contributing to it, I invariably get argument from some others on the Right. Invariably, I am pointed in the direction of some dissident scientist or researcher who rejects the mainstream view.
Inevitably, some of these dissenters are highly intelligent, learned and credentialled. Australian professor and geologist Ian Plimer, for example, has forgotten more about earth sciences than I could ever learn. He is also a critic of the existing climate-change model. If the overwhelming majority of those with expertise in the field do not agree with him, however, then how am I personally qualified to judge him right?
To do so I would have to resume my scientific studies from where I left off in high school and take them through to a graduate level, while also becoming proficient in computer modelling.
I can tell you, however, that, at this stage in my life, that’s not going to happen. So the only logical way to proceed is to assume that, unless there is a paradigm shift, the orthodox view is probably correct.
Of course, accepting current science does not entail a commitment to a particular political response. Believing the official narrative about 9/11 doesn’t mean you have to support invading Iraq. In the same way, understanding the climate gives no special insight as to what is possible in economics, government and human nature. Those things remain on the table.
Examining the environmental legacy of central planning in the 20th century, for example, gives me little confidence in reviving the failed experiment of state socialism as a cure. We should not impoverish ourselves unless there is a reasonable chance that doing so will lessen the harmful effects of global warming. To any proposal on the subject, therefore, I really just want to know two things: What will it cost and what will it get us?
Often, those who often campaign on climate issues say that as science has diagnosed the problem, we should follow science for the solution. That’s a fine-sounding proposal, but I am not sure how realistic it is. Few have an absolute commitment to science.
For example, there is also a scientific consensus that genetic modification and editing is a safe technology. Furthermore, the potential of things like modified grasses to reduce emissions may represent a real chance to significantly cut agricultural emissions. Unfortunately, outdated laws stand in the way.
As do the Greens, by the way. Despite recent equivocation by co-leader James Shaw, the party that claims to be most concerned about the climate maintains an unscientific opposition to genetic technology.
If we are talking about embracing science policy, it looks like we have a while to go yet.
Asa layman, the only thing I can do is assume the preponderance of expert opinion on the question is probably correct.