Global Warming: The Rant

When Fern was about four, he had a friend whose father worked for me.  One day, Fern came home from preschool and headed straight to me. 

"Poppa?"

"Hi Fern!  How are you?" 

"Upton told me you are the boss of everyone at work.  Are you the boss of everyone?"

"No, Fern, I am not.  Not even close." 

I could see the disappointment on Fern's face.  He thought carefully about my response, and then asked,
 

"I can still believe it, though, right Poppa?"

Beliefs are curious things.  They can motivate great accomplishments.  Like, putting a man on the moon.  But they can also be a force of great destruction.  As Bertram Russell once pointed out, very few wars are fought over facts.  ("That is a chair, Wilhelm."  "That is indeed a chair, Francois.  Prepare to die!")

When it comes to early retir...
 

"Oh, Mr. Deadwood, this is so perfect!  I'm doing a school project on beliefs.  Would you mind answering a few questions?"

Not at all, Holly.  That sounds like fun.  Shoot.

"Great!  Okay.  Uh, okay.  So.  Question #1: Do you believe in global warming?"

No, I don't.  Not one bit.

"Okay, great.  Then...let's see...Question #1B: Why not?"

Because global warming is a scientific fact.  As such, it isn't subject to belief in the way that say, religion is.  You'd might as well ask if I believe in gravity or sodium.
 

"Oh.  Okay, well, that really complicates your answer to Question #1.  You don't believe in it, but you don't not believe in it, either.  I don't know how to fit it in my questionnaire.  So I'll just throw it out."

What?  Hold on there, Holly.  I think I'm saying something really insightful here.
 

"Maybe, but I can't tabulate it.  So, Question #2: Do you believe in love at first sight?"

Aren't you even a little curious about my position on global warming?
 

"I'm sorry, Mr. Deadwood, but not really.  I should have started my project weeks ago.  Besides, I researched enough about global warming to know that it is probably all just a giant scientific conspiracy."

Oh.  Yeah, that.  So, can I ask what the source of your understanding is?
 

"The politicians, of course.  They're always talking about it."

So let me ask you a question.  When it comes to science, who is the more credible source?  Scientists or politicians?

"What do you mean?"

Well, the politicians claim that almost all the scientists are lying, deceiving and abandoning scientific principles for personal gain.  But isn't it more likely that the politicians, people who get paid to be political, are the ones lying, deceiving and abandoning scientific principles for their own gain?

Keep in mind that not all the politicians are discrediting the scientists.  It's only about half of them.  So who is more credible when it comes to science, virtually all of the scientists or about half of the politicians?
 

"I see your point, Mr. Deadwood.  But just because the politicians may be less credible doesn't mean they are wrong."

True.  But it certainly should raise your suspicions, especially given the weakness of their argument.  They say that all the current research on global warming is a lie - scientists are publishing bad research just to get funding.

If that's true, there's got to be a lot of "good" research out there by now.  Corporations have a lot at stake if new regulations curb emissions.  They stand to lose a boatload of money.  And corporations have record profits.  So they actually have a boatload of money.  With so much at stake and with such deep pockets, they should be funding all kinds of research to disprove global warming.  Why aren't they?  Perhaps because they already know what the research will say.

Instead of funding research, organizations such as the ExxonMobile Foundation and the Koch Affiliated Foundations gave $558 M in dark money to conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, trade associations, media, and politicians.  (According to a study by Drexel University covering 2003 - 2010.)

conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, trade associations and conservative foundations, with strong links to sympathetic media outlets and conservative politicians. - See more at: http://drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/#sthash.8I6Oqz0k.dpuf

conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, trade associations and conservative foundations, with strong links to sympathetic media outlets and conservative politicians. - See more at: http://drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/#sthash.8I6Oqz0k.dpuf

"Well, maybe the corporations want to fund scientific research, but the scientists don't want their money."

But why wouldn't they?  If global warming is a lie, the scientists would do better by working with corporations.  That way, they get their funding AND stick to their principles.  No lying, no deceit.  Both money and integrity.  Hard to beat.
 

"Maybe scientists are conspiring for political reasons instead of financial ones."

According to a Pew Research Center poll, the majority of scientists is indeed Democrat (55%).  But a large minority is Independent (32%).  And a small, but significant minority is Republican (6%).  So scientists are more politically diverse than the politicians would have you believe.  And the science world outside of the United States is even more diverse.  I can't see any way that this group could hold together such a vast, multi-million person political conspiracy.
  

"Well, I learned about group think in Social Studies.  Maybe all the scientists are just conforming with all the other scientists' opinions."

Well, that's precisely why science was created in the first place - to discover verifiable facts based on sound methodology, instead of relying on a consensus of beliefs that may not be based on anything at all.  (Politicians, on the other hand...)

And remember, we're talking scientists, here.  People with...let's say..."very healthy" egos.  If they can't discover something new, the next best thing is to prove a colleague wrong.  (Have you ever heard two scientists argue?  OMG.)

In fact, that is actually one of the great things about science.  It is self-correcting.  For instance, in 1989, a couple of scientists claimed they had discovered cold fusion.  But other scientists soon rebuked their findings when the results couldn't be replicated.  And just a couple months ago, scientists who claimed evidence of the big bang announced their results may have been tainted by particles in the Milky Way.  Things in science don't stay wrong for long.
 

"But maybe right now, the scientists are all wrong."

Arriving at the exact wrong conclusion for any given research project does happen, but not that often.  But let's assume science is a total crapshoot.  That is, there is only a 50% chance that the right conclusion will be reached, and a 50% chance that the exact wrong conclusion will be reached.

Well, I've heard there are something like 20,000 studies on global warming.  But let's assume that figure is a 10x exaggeration perpetrated by the liberal media and there is really only something like 2,000 studies.  Given our crapshoot assumption, the probability that all 2,000 studies arrived at the wrong conclusion is (1/2)^2,000.  How small is that?  Well, (1/2)^20 is already a mere 0.000001.  Change that 20 to 2,000 and the probability is unfathomably tiny.  I mean, so tiny that my computer can't even calculate it.  When I try, it just says, "Really, Deadwood?  ZERO.  Just assume it is zero and get a life, man."

(For you nerds, Excel craps out after (1/2)^1022 = 2.2E-308)

(For you non-nerds, the decimal form of that number is:
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000022  See?  Tiny.)
 

"Well if you're right, the politicians will eventually come around and lead us."

I wish I shared your optimism, Holly.  But right now, the argument is shifting from "there is no such thing as global warming" to "there is no such thing as global warming and even if there were, it isn't caused by man."  I'm guessing that the argument eventually will just shift to something like, "global warming isn't caused by man, and even if it were, it's too late to do anything about it."

Sort of like Easter Island on a global scale.  "I know it's the last tree, Ho'okele, but it's not going to do much good now, anyway.  Cut it down."
 

"You are a cynical man, Mr. Deadwood."

Well, I am retired, after all.

"What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite."  - Bertrand Russell

"Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so."  - Bertrand Russell