Dean's World

In case you haven't noticed, Newsweek recently disgraced itself on the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Walking into the local borders bookstore and reading this article inspired these two pieces that I've posted at Red State:

Burn Them Alive (Then Plant Trees to Make the Execution Carbon Neutral)
Honey I Fried the Planet

Since Newsweek states "greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers)..." I've decided to use a better term for the non-scientific inquisition of those who question the current AGW paradigm: heretic.

I am a skeptic.

For people who truly understand, a "skeptic" does not say "I think X is not true." A skeptic says, "I am not convinced about X, and I have some tough questions." Which, to me, has always been where science truly starts.

I'm often astonished how some people, especially some with college degrees in science, can't distinguish the difference.

Many of my friends and teachers who have been working scientists have told me a certain dirty fact: there are an awful lot of "scientists" who are nothing but bureaucrats and self-serving suckups and administrative button-counters and bottle-washers-- just like every other honest and admirable profession in the world.

(Repeat: Just like every other honest and admirable profession in the world.)

On global warming, my position has been the same for years:

1) It is undeniable that there is Climate Change.
2) It is virtually 100% certain that human beings are contributing to Climate Change.
3) It appears highly likely that there is a general warming trend in the world at the moment.
4) CO2 levels have clearly been increasing globally for decades.

So, given that I agree to all of that, what exactly am I "doubting" or "denying" or expressing "heresy" or whatever on? I await a succinct answer upon that.

In the meantime, what is not clear to me, and has not been clear to me for some time is:

1) The increase in CO2 levels is the primary cause of whatever warming trend we've seen recently. How sure are you? It's okay if you have some doubt. But how high is that doubt? 10%? 20%? 30%? What's your confidence interval?

2) Regardless of how certain you are, a separate question: is this truly the most important ecological question we face as a species and as a planet? Should this truly be our #1 priority, ecologically and in terms of our nation, our race, our species, or our planet?

I've been saying most of this pretty consistently for quite some years now. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that (aside from maybe a sarcastic or flip comment now and then) that I haven't changed my view on that in a decade.

For the record, I have read Al Gore's Earth in the Balance cover-to-cover, including all footnotes, and checked many of his references. Have you?

I've also read Rarchel Carson's Silent Spring, by the way. Have you read it, Mr. Self-righteous Liberal or Ms. All-Knowing Conservative? I even have the special edition where Al Gore wrote his own introduction to it somewhere in my library. I remember being as unimpressed with it as I was with Al Gore's incredibly self-serving, messianic political campaign movie, An Inconvenient Truth, which he quite transparently hoped would transport him to the Presidency in 2008 and still hopes will make him a viable candidate in 2012. (Which is just fine by the way, but let's not kid ourselves that this man is in any way smarter or more noble than, say, George Bush or Bill Clinton, because he isn't. Although he's still a way more honest and intelligent pseudo-documentarian propagandist than, say, a hatemonger like Michael Moore).

Indeed, for some time now I've been saying that if Al Gore and their supporters would just drop their destructive opposition to nuclear power, I would be willing to compromise and support some of their other proposals which I found dubious. All they have to do is stop demonizing nuclear power, which is the most environmentally friendly, greenhouse-gas-free form of power generation ever invented by humanity. Unfortunately, Al Gore still publicly refuses to do so.

And by the way, my own personal financial or personal stake in the nuclear power industry? 0.0%. It's just the most environmentally friendly and economically viable form of power generation humanity has ever created, and I still feel betrayed by "environmentalists" who demonize it.

Anyway, since you can't make this simple politics-free concession, Al & Co, I'm not on your side, and will instead continue to do my best to (A) educate people on why we appear to have been snookered by the ridiculous luddites who oppose nuclear power, and (B) continue to point out why everyday people should be skeptical of global warming scaremongers, especially those scaremongers who clearly derive their entire incomes and personal prestige from spreading that scaremongering.

And by the way, to you scientists who do this research? For pay? As part of your full-time jobs? From money that comes from taxpayers like me? You don't get to whine like wounded puppies when someone says, "uh, so, that money we gave you, did you do something valid with it? Or are you just rationalizing?"

As for me: "Denier?" "Heretic?" "Doubter?" Hey, pick whatever convenient label helps you ignore the substantive arguments raised here (and elsewhere, not just by me but by many others).

*Update*: By the way, as I've said many times before, I pretty much consider it a given that anyone reduced to using the word "denier" or "denialist" or "conspiracy" or claiming that only money drives skepticism automatically proves themselves intellectual lightweights not worthy of answering.

from his climate policy speech at the NYU Law School on Sep. 18, 2006.

Many believe that a responsible approach to sharply reducing global warming pollution would involve a significant increase in the use of nuclear power plants as a substitute for coal-fired generators. While I am not opposed to nuclear power and expect to see some modest increased use of nuclear reactors, I doubt that they will play a significant role in most countries as a new source of electricity. The main reason for my skepticism about nuclear power playing a much larger role in the world's energy future is not the problem of waste disposal or the danger of reactor operator error, or the vulnerability to terrorist attack. Let's assume for the moment that all three of these problems can be solved. That still leaves two serious issues that are more difficult constraints. The first is economics; the current generation of reactors is expensive, take a long time to build, and only come in one size -- extra large. In a time of great uncertainty over energy prices, utilities must count on great uncertainty in electricity demand -- and that uncertainty causes them to strongly prefer smaller incremental additions to their generating capacity that are each less expensive and quicker to build than are large 1000 megawatt light water reactors. Newer, more scalable and affordable reactor designs may eventually become available, but not soon. Secondly, if the world as a whole chose nuclear power as the option of choice to replace coal-fired generating plants, we would face a dramatic increase in the likelihood of nuclear weapons proliferation. During my 8 years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program. Today, the dangerous weapons programs in both Iran and North Korea are linked to their civilian reactor programs. Moreover, proposals to separate the ownership of reactors from the ownership of the fuel supply process have met with stiff resistance from developing countries who want reactors. As a result of all these problems, I believe that nuclear reactors will only play a limited role.

discuss.