Gas price pandering

Is there anyone who has been awake at some point during the past 30 years who is surprised that the price of gasoline is going up? Apparently, news about the discovery of the law of supply and demand has not yet reached downtown DC. Democrats and Republicans alike seem to be in a state of shock and are spouting barrels of nonsense.

George Bush praised the contribution of ethanol, which he sais is of obvious value to all Americans. Is it possible to say that with a straight face about a fuel that is heavily subsidized by the federal government in a progrtam that is clearly designed to meet the needs of corn growers at the expense of everyone else?

Not to be outdone, there were Democrats on the Hill calling for the suspension of gas taxes. Is this the same party that promoted higher gas taxes as a way to encourage conservation? Is there anylthing more effective than high fossil fuel proces for encouraging energy conservation and the development of alternative sources of energy?

NASA: A Modest Proposal

Remember the people who claimed that the moon landing was faked, that it was a cleverly designed hoax like Orson Welles's "War of the Worlds." Maybe they actually had the right idea. George Bush wants to starve space science so that there will be more money for human exploration of space. Since he's never actually going to provide enough money for a serious effort, why not simply fund George Lucas to produce some first-rate human space adventures. It can be compelling TV, rich in the danger, drama, majesty, and heroism that Bush thinks will inspire the public. An actual flight will produce no more than that. The money that is saved can then be spent on boring science that will produce useful and important results, but little drama. The result will be an ideal space program that delivers thrills and knowledge without busiting the budget.

AAAS Policy Forum

Presidential science advisor Jack Marburger gave the opening keynote at AAAS's annual policy forum in Washington. After talking about the pressure on the budget and the good job the Bush administration is doing in preserving research funding, he made an appeal to the science community to take responsibility for setting in priorities across disciplines. Although this might seem sensible at first, there is really no science budget in which to set priorities. Responsibility for science funding is spread across numerous congressional committees, and there is no way to make rational trade-offs among disciplines. The only practical course for scientists in each discipline is to make the case for more funding for their own specialties.

Marburger noted that earmarking has become so extensive that achieving a deliberate distribution of funds is sometimes impossible. Most scientists would agree, but Marburger is talking to the wrong audience. With the Republicans contolling the White House and both houses in Congress, it would make more sense to talk to Republican leaders about the problem.

Last week I wrote about respecting the doubters of climate change science. Harvard's John Holdren chaired an excellent session that reflected the mainstream of scientific opinion on climate chanage. The need for action could not be more compelling. Holdren pointed out that our understanding of the climate has been improving steadily and that the most worrisome finding is the awareness that rapid change is a real possibility. This is becoming most evident in the rapid melting of large ice masses.

Holdren emphasized the key role of technology in developing long-term solutions. Joseph Romm pointed out that we need to begin by implementing the tech that we already have. The sooner we start, the easier it will be to reduce carbon emissions. Romm said that if we wait 10 years before acting it will be virtually impossible to avoid a disastrous level of sea level rise.

In the evening, former Princeton president Harold Shapiro gave a very thoughtful talk about the need to understand science in a larger cultural and policy context. He argued that science must be understood as part of the larger cultural achievements of humanity and that we too often fail to see its connection to other cultural activities and trends. Similarly, he complained that we too often view science policy through the narrow lens of federal research funding. Many more aspects of policy are important to the effective development and use of science and technology.

Gracias to the Gadfly

Gracias to the Gadfly

When climate experts describe the climate change debate, they usually say that the argument that human activities that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere are causing the climate to warm is supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. They describe the opposition as a noisy band of fossil fuel industry hired guns, free market fanatics, scientifically challenged amateurs, and Richard Lindzen. The outlier is Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

In an op-ed (“Climate of Fear,” Wall St. Journal, 4/12/06) Lindzen complains that climate change orthodoxy has made it impossible to question the scientific foundation of climate change claims, and he takes personally the charge that any scientist who raises questions must be a stooge of the fossil-fuel industry. Although there are plenty of stooges to be found, it seems more likely that Lindzen’s flaw is idealism. He believes that it is possible to have a thoughtful, open-minded, civil debate scientific debate about a controversy that has enormous political and economic implications.

I’m not qualified to judge the validity of Lindzen’s own climate research, but I’m inclined to believe the majority consensus that he questions. However, on the character of the political debate, Lindzen has a valid point. The urgency that many scientists feel about the necessity of taking action on climate change leads them to an us and them stance in the political debate. As a result, they are unlikely to criticize the errors and exaggerations of nonscientists who are fighting for action to slow climate change and impatient with scientists who want to quibble with any of the science.

There is nothing wrong with criticizing Lindzen’s scientific work, but there is a problem when scientists tolerate the errors made by allies who know far less about climate than does Lindzen. The evidence that climate trends are cause for concern is very convincing. The failure to blow the whistle on unreliable or misguided arguments ultimately weakens the case for action.

Most scientists who want action on climate change view Lindzen as an annoying distraction, a gadfly who provides legitimacy to uninformed and meretricious critics. They would be wiser to let Lindzen have his say and to refute it, but to make clear the difference between him and the willfully uninformed. At the same time, they need to work harder to distinguish what they know with scientific confidence from the uninformed speculation of some of their political allies. A critique that addresses Lindzen’s excessive skepticism as well as the credulousness of the climate change faithful will move the political debate in the right direction.