A Response To A Climate Change Critic
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/
Partly, I assume, to simply let me and know but also to agitate me because he knows my strong stance towards recognition, acceptance and solutions to the mammoth environmental changes occurring on our Earth right now.
I responded with my own email. I think it was really more a channel of some of my frustration with our society refusal to face the dangerous reality that is besetting them right now:
*******************************
He seems really bothered by the idea that global warming (or what really should be called 'climate change') is "incontrovertible". He makes a distinction between scientists accumulating data and the notion that an idea can't be contested, because that is counter to the nature of science. Everything should be questioned. It's not very surprising to hear from a man who deals with quantum mechanisms, a realm of science where the very idea of what we understand reality to be is questioned. You wouldn't go to a OB/Gyn if you had a breast cyst would you? No, because they're different fields. He thinks in a specific way for his field. He's been bred for it.
A scientist is also a human, with opinions, likes and disgusts. For him there is not enough evidence given the time span, but his leaving is the result of what he obviously takes as the politicization of science. The usage of "incontrovertible" was extremely upsetting to him and went against everything that he was taught and believes in.
Walt Brown graduated from MIT with a PhD in mech engineering (West Point graduate as well) and is a proponent of Young Earth Creationism. He went to MIT and got his PhD...do you believe that the world is 6,000 years old? There are plenty of smart people out there who I can disagree with.
There are also smart and stupid ways about approaching a problem. Whether or not climate change is the result of humans may not ultimately prove to be the deciding issue, but instead the simple question of, "what do we do with all this waste that we are creating?" That is an undeniable problem. Organisms have spent billions of years developing mechanisms to solve the issue of waste, which inevitably proves toxic. Why should the evolution of our human societies be any different?
Ultimately, the discussion of climate change and environmental issues is one that, I think, will prove to be a huge deciding factor of the survival of our societies. We are not immune to the laws of nature, including the idea that if you don't replenish what you use then you cease to live. What, I think, these discussions do do is get us to talk about these things, which barely anyone spoke about 40 years ago. And the very fact that "scientists" are not in all agreement on this issue proves how complicated the environment is. There is no one way, no one right solution, no one way to think. We have so may fields of medicine because the human body is just too damn complicated and it is impossible for one physician to be able to connect all the dots. The same applies to the currents and mechanisms of the Earth. We can't collect all the evidence from millions of years ago (apart from glacial records -- which only allows for a few thousand years), but we can certainly make a decision about how we want to venture into the unknown: with caution for our species (curtailing waste and dealing with it in a rational manner) or with full blown human arrogance (thank you Governor Rick Perry).
Whatever your politics or economics, nature/the universe/the Earth ultimately doesn't care. Whether a species lives or dies doesn't matter to the Earth. It just is. It's just evolution. We are the first species able, to a certain degree, to determine whether we will become extinct or continue into the future. Is all this time-wasting/money-wasting/bickering really worth our species' survival? I always think it's important to keep in mind that compared to the vastness of our entire universe we are inconsequential (this is without any sort of religious sentiment of course). A little blue dot floating around in a much bigger universe controlled by powers beyond that of our simple machines. I think Carl Sagan would agree.
Yay Earth!

Labels: Climate Change, Debate, Nature, Societal Collapse