Funny how last weeks snow storms were all the rage on Right blogs while not a word was uttered concerning the unseasonably warm weather in Vancouver. Typically Republican. And while I think Thomas Friedman’s NYT Op-Ed is a step in the right direction I doubt it will change any minds on the Right – mainly because the Right doesn’t respect or understand science. They are quite happy in the Dark Ages, thank you very much. Also why trudge through data by a physicist, Joseph Romm, when you can just listen to Donald Trump. Talk about the dumbing down of America.
But back to Friedman’s article.
When you see lawmakers like Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina tweeting that “it is going to keep snowing until Al Gore cries ‘uncle,’ ” or news that the grandchildren of Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma are building an igloo next to the Capitol with a big sign that says “Al Gore’s New Home,” you really wonder if we can have a serious discussion about the climate-energy issue anymore.
That’s the point. The last thing Republicans want is a “serious discussion about the climate-energy issue.” They simply don’t have the facts – or the intellectual capabilities – to understand science. Reading, and then discussing, scientific research is beyond them, and why bother when it’s snowing. To them global warming can be dismissed by the need to wear a jacket. And the regularity they get away with these nonsense arguments is breath-taking.
They truly don’t understand science – which probably explains the glaring lack of scientists among their ranks. So here is how science works (in a nutshell): Disproving is as important as proving. Got that?
The main problem for scientists is countering a political attack that cherry picks their research and/or lies about what they said. My family is bursting with scientists and environmental engineers. Ever try talking to these people? Needless to say, their points and research aren’t designed for a world dominated by sound bites and bumper stickers. Or simply, science is complex. Which, again, brings us back to Friedman’s idea.
Although there remains a mountain of research from multiple institutions about the reality of climate change, the public has grown uneasy. What’s real? In my view, the climate-science community should convene its top experts — from places like NASA, America’s national laboratories, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the California Institute of Technology and the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre — and produce a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes.
At the same time, they should add a summary of all the errors and wild exaggerations made by the climate skeptics — and where they get their funding. It is time the climate scientists stopped just playing defense. The physicist Joseph Romm, a leading climate writer, is posting on his Web site, climateprogress.org, his own listing of the best scientific papers on every aspect of climate change for anyone who wants a quick summary now.
I think this is a good idea. I also know that this 50 page report won’t matter to the neanderthals on the right – mainly because they won’t read it. But I can’t worry about them. They are a lost cause who deny science with the same fervor they deny Obama’s birth certificate. Amazing how physical evidence and research carry no weight with a group who insist that everything in the Bible is true and must be taken on faith.
I’d be happy to leave science to the scientists, but that’s not the way this game is shaping up. It’s political. So give me that 50 page report and I’ll fight that political fight because scientists have more important things to do than fight “intellectual giants” like Donald Trump and DeMint.