Global warming is one of those contentious phrases that can cause completely different reactions in different people, like ""pro-choice,"" ""enhanced interrogation"" or ""*NSYNC."" Some folks hear it and think ""man-made lasting catastrophic failure"" and others think ""left-wing tree-hugging scare tactic.""
As you're probably aware, Al Gore recently won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work raising awareness on global warming. Again, contention abounds. Fans point to his Oscar and Emmy as signs he's succeeding in getting the message out, and detractors point to the awards as signs that Hollywood is a liberal love fest.
Now, regardless of where you fall on the Al Gore spectrum, we can all agree on two things. First, jokes about Al Gore inventing stuff (the Internet, global warming, love) will never get old. Second, talk about global warming is one of those things that just won't go away.
In fact, for many of us the topic has come up so often it's becoming commonplace. It is a handy excuse for any weirdness in the weather, like El Nino was just a few years ago. We're becoming pretty blasé about a phenomenon that could, in theory, destroy our species. And while this could just be the growing coolness of cynicism and gloom (nothing's hipper than a bleak future, after all), there's probably a bit more to it.
The whole chance that it might not be true, for instance. Nothing takes the chill out of a doomsday prediction like the asterisk that says, ""Well, maybe not."" It's one thing to be afraid of a definite apocalypse, like nuclear war or a giant asteroid, but a mere possible one? We, as a society, seem to have more important things to worry about. Is that so bad?
Folks like Al Gore and the Nobel committee seem to think so. To them, there is no debate, there is no question or doubt about the science behind global warming. Interestingly, for people who disbelieve the theory of global warming, the issue is just as black and white. ""Of course global warming's not true,"" critics argue. ""There's no scientific consensus!"" Each side points to generic ""science"" to prove its case, and the general public, which actually is too busy to investigate, doesn't know who to believe.
I miss the good old days when people at least agreed on what the science was. There was no question that nuclear war was possible, just on whether it should be. Nowadays, we can't even agree on how to pronounce the word nuclear for fear of appearing biased (it's ""NOOH-clee-ar.""). It seems like even science has succumbed to the bickering and rivalries so familiar to us in politics.
Of course, to a certain extent it was always like this. Isaac Newton, the guy who invented calculus just so he could work on physics, convinced the world Leibniz plagiarized him, even though Leibniz published years before Newton. When the germ theory was first proposed the scientific establishment laughed, and when this upstart nobody named Albert Einstein questioned classical physics, he didn't have many supporters.
Still, these were all interdisciplinary squabbles, and generally once scientists accepted a theory or model, it wasn't questioned except by new scientific findings. The general climate of debate is now so rife with factionalism and anger that no one believes in actual, unbiased opinion anymore. Everything's either black or white, people think, but sometimes it's even simpler: There's no alternative, things just are.
'Science' magazine touched upon the debate (or lack thereof) over global warming in 2004, stating, ""Politicians, economists, journalists and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."" The only scientific beef with global warming is from a very small minority, with everyone else concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.
Whatever our personal views on the subject, science has pretty much spoken. We're free to disagree if we like, but science's track record is pretty impressive; it's been the best way of figuring things out we've ever come up with. Not bad, but then Al Gore wouldn't have invented it any other way.
Got scientific beef with Bill? Email him at science@dailycardinal.com.
