On Global Divest from Fossil Fuels Day (Feb. 14, 2015), Washington University's Record published this piece from the McKelvey Engineering School as their lead article:
How Does Climate Change Impact You?
The article discusses how faculty in various departments talk, think, and act on climate change and global warming.
My thoughts:
It is considered bad etiquette to critique the work of colleagues in the university, especially across disciplinary boundaries. However, on issues of national and global importance, with implications for the health and well-being of our children, and their children, one must make an exception. I see serious problems with the way the research is presented, and with the ways that some of the scholars themselves represent the challenge of human-caused global warming.
First, those entrusted with scientific legitimacy and credibility should engage in clear communication of known facts. We have a huge problem with public knowledge - I refer to this as fossil knowledge - because of the ways that science is distorted by politicians, the media, and the fossil fuel industry.
So, when scientific institutions themselves engage in distortion, both the institution and public knowledge are undermined.
How does this work? We are engaging in willful distortion because "scientists" and "engineers" are not willing to state clearly what the science says. This includes positing scientific fact as an "issue" that is up to passion and debate. This is a standard for Fox News, not for a scientific institution. Consider the opening paragraph of the article:
 |
| Source: NASA |
"passion on either side of the issue?" What issue? There is no either side to a scientific fact. Some politicians who do not believe in science may have an issue, but they are in a separate category. As for the "common man"…? There may be passion about what should be done, but to suggest that the facts are up for debate is absurd.
"scientists, politicians, and the common man" These are separate categories of knowledge and each has separate ways of validating knowledge. Why blur them here? Among real scientists there is no significant debate about why we have global warming. Politicians debate because they operate ideologically, or because of financial interests of their donors. The common man has plenty of knowledge, but debates things thanks to this kind of miscommunication that distorts reality so as to reproduce ignorance.
"man's contributions to the environment"? OK, gendered issues aside for the moment, why are we incapable of saying what these contributions are? Contributions? What kind of word is that? Man [sic] does not make contributions to the environment. People make contributions to charities. Fossil fuel emissions are not a contribution to the environment.
Why can't the university simply say the truth? Try something this simple:
Global warming is real. Global warming is caused by humans. Global warming is having an impact on sea level, extreme weather, glacial melting, droughts, and human and animal habitats.
The primary cause of global warming is CO2 emissions, the most significant of the greenhouse gases, which trap heat in our atmosphere.
The most significant source of CO2 emissions is the burning of fossil fuels: coal, oil, and gas.
If we do not dramatically reduce our use of fossil fuels, global warming will worsen significantly in coming years.
On this there is no debate.
To say anything else is to engage in willful distortion. Willful distortion of scientific fact is unethical.
We may debate how best and how fast we should reduce our fossil fuel use, but on the facts there is little room for debate.
The "solar activity" myth But it gets worse. Let us cast doubt on things (quote from the first professor featured in the article):
"Seem to agree"? No, they agree. "seems to be some disagreement over the causes?" There is no disagreement over the causes. Is this a "man-made phenomenon"? Yes, clearly. Attributable to solar activity? What? Say that again? With all due respect, we might acknowledge that many in the academy and among the "common man" are uninformed, due to no fault of their own if it is not their area of expertise. But would not the engineers and scientists charged with this feature alert the professor to the facts before going to press?
Global warming - the warming that is of concern right now - has nothing to do with solar activity. Check with NASA: (http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/):
I find it troubling that we have to engage in such clarifications at an institution that professes to be at the forefront of scientific research on the challenges facing us. I won't get into the whole 'clean coal' thing. We've dealt with the myth of 'clean coal' here and elsewhere in this blog.
Several of the faculty members in this article are doing important research on 'adaptation' to global warming. Some are studying impacts of pollution. Yet why are many, if not most, unwilling to articulate in clear terms why we have global warming, and how we might be able to address it by dramatically cutting our use of fossil fuels?
And why should all of us not speak out? These are not ideological questions, this is about basic scientific truth.
Are these misrepresentations insignificant or is our science compromised by our ties to the fossil fuel industry and money- or ideologically-driven donors? Do we believe in science, ignorance, or what?
We appear to be seeing the effects of industry pressure compromising academic integrity of the university. If not innocent ignorance, it is willful distortion. And, if it is willful distortion it is a form of censorship of truth.
The facts: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
The causes: http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
On the primary cause of global warming: more CO2 in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution (i.e. the age of fossil fuels):
On the primary source of more CO2 in the atmosphere: human burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas):
Updated February 21, 2015: More on the fossil fuel industry funding of 'research' on 'solar activity':
Turns out that the solar activity research is largely backed by the fossil fuel industry, as part of their wider campaign to confuse public knowledge so as to slow any public or governmental response.
Start here: Feb. 21, 2015: "Documents Reveal Fossil Fuel Fingerprints on Contrarian Climate Research." Inside Climate News.
That should take you to a story of bogus journals, oil-funded research, Chinese 'science journals', and Jan 22, 2015: "Factcheck: Scientists hit back at claims global warming projections are 'greatly exaggerated.' The Carbon Brief.
Updated May 5, 2016: It seems that the US Chamber of Commerce has its hand in the university as well, which may explain the misrepresentations described above. We're watching WUSTL, in defense of the public trust.
