<snip>
Is there no ignorance allowed on this one subject? I took my children to see the film "Wall-E." This wonderful family entertainment opens with the given that mankind destroyed Earth. You can't turn on the TV without seeing someone hating ourselves for what we've done to the planet and preaching the end of the world. Maybe they're right, but is there no room for "maybe"? There's a lot of evidence, but global warming encompasses a lot of complicated points: Is it happening? Did we cause it? Is it bad? Can we fix it? Is government-forced conservation the only way to fix it?
[...]
.............
Of course ignorance is allowed.
Even scientists who've made it their life's work to study the Earth's climate admit to not knowing quite a few things. As Penn says, the issue "encompasses a lot of complicated points".
But, as everyone should've heard by now, the majority of climate scientists are in agreement about some basics: there is a greenhouse effect. Carbon is its major component. Every day, we add lots and lots of carbon to the atmosphere. We should stop. If we don't stop, we're likely in for a rough ride. A very rough ride.
Penn's response seems to be almost entirely motivated by an excessive love of cranky skepticism. Like nearly all traits, that's a virtue in some situations and a liability in others. He tells us: the 'experts' aren't always right; I have a tradition of skeptical inquiry to uphold, plus, I'm tired of being lectured about the harmful effects of industrial civilization and seeing dystopian futures in movies.
Okay, fine. But here's the thing: I notice you're not writing skeptical op-eds about the theory of electromagnetism even though your grasp of its details is probably no better than your understanding of climate science. You tacitly accept that the current theory -- which is supported by generations of mathematics, observation and practical application -- works well enough to explain how things like televisions get powered.
There is still work ongoing to refine our understanding but many of the basics are accepted by the majority of physicists. I'm sure that's good enough for you.
So why is this particular theory -- the theory of human created warming -- singled out for special scrutiny? I think it's because it demands action. And the sort of action it demands is probably not Penn's slice of cake.
The problem isn't really that all the facts aren't in or that we need an extra dollop of skepticism (I'm confident Exxon and its fellow travelers have given us multimillion dollars' worth of 'skepticism'), it's that if, as appears likely, the science is accurate, we have to re-think how we do pretty much everything. I'm going to guess that Penn -- like many other 'skeptics' -- doesn't want to face that. It's not the way he thought he'd be spending his old age, it's not the way he imagined his kid's future.
Typically, skeptics only foresee retreat and reduction -- abandoned cities, cold winters indoors with low thermostats, underpowered cars (or no cars at all), endless Green Team committee meetings with excitable men wearing sandals and socks, guys in motorcycle helmets keeping out roving gangs looking for food. In short, Hollywood's dystopian future playbook featuring Will Smith walking amidst the ruins of a once bustling downtown. 'And all for nothing', they say, 'because maybe there wasn't a real problem.'
What they don't see is an unprecedented opportunity to redesign -- or, to re-purpose a term, terraform -- our civilization. They don't see the truly exciting potential of a global project which could give their old age vigorous meaning and provide their children and grandchildren with critically important occupations now undreamed of.
I don't know, maybe part of this (a really small part) is the fault of those of us who've been talking about the issue for years; so many of us have focused on the Ballardian, 'drowned world' vision of the future -- on the possibility for desperate resource wars and collapse.
Who wants to think about that? Sure, there are some people who read Kunstler's The Long Emergency and, with an excited gleam in their eye, sold their home close to town and moved to a sleepy redoubt, learned to generate electricity using groundhog poop and began following rising gas prices with ghoulish anticipation.
Most people however, would rather ignore all that and enjoy what's currently available. Big house? Sure, why not. Big vehicle? Well, before fuel costs started climbing that seemed like fun, and hell, I've got four kids, I need the space.
And all made possible by a versatile, powerful, marvelous energy source: petroleum.
What Penn and his skeptical teammates need to understand, and fast, is that while it's true no one should lecture them about the energy use choices they made in the past, we now know enough to be sure this a dangerous way to do business for much longer.
And the scientific consensus -- which is good enough to explain, without the need for snarky critique, how electrons flow through wires -- is that we're (for completely understandable reasons -- who could resist the use of such a power source) mostly to blame.
Dennis Perrin wrote:
I believe in one episode, Jillette slimed Chomsky as a conspiracy nut or something like that, while praising David Horowitz. Skeptic, indeed.
.........
Yes, I saw that very episode. A friend -- someone who learned about Chomsky's US foreign policy related writings through me -- breathlessly called me to describe the "beat down" Chomsky was receiving from Penn.
What it came down to was this: Horowitz claimed that there was a crisis on American college and university campuses; a crisis of suppressed speech. Conservatives, Horowitz spittily insisted, were being shouted out of the academy. Penn offered up some examples -- the usual tales of early 20 somethings going apeshit about something and over earnest administrators backing them up in the name of preserving a 'tolerant' environment. Sure, the examples highlighted excessive responses but the question was: how much of a problem was this?
Chomsky's reply was that there was no crisis. In fact, conservatives had plenty of outlets including the entire apparatus of the US government. A few outlier stories of liberal witch hunting aside, there was nothing to lose sleep over. 'Close to my office here at MIT' Chomsky told Penn 'the Pentagon maintains a robust research presence.'
So obviously, conservative 'values' were receiving not only a fair hearing, but tax payer dollars.
Penn went ballistic in his usual way. Hadn't he just showed us the story about that little college in New Hampshire or some such place where the liberals went mad with politically correct power?
All downhill from there. Fact is, Penn was simply too thick to get the subtle point Chomsky was making.
.d.