The Verdict is Still Out...

As with nearly all polarizing issues it is best to circumvent the politics of the issue and, when possible, go straight to the science. With the release of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” earlier this year we were all treated to a firestorm of punditry, everyone from the right and the left seemed sure they had it right. Yet very few actually looked at the science of the issue. I feel obliged to write about the issue after I read an article concerning the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) refusal to accept 50,000 free DVD’s from the producers of the film. Now as this is a sensitive issue you may think the teachers made the right decision in staying out of a political debate. Well, unfortunately, you would be wrong on two counts.
Firstly, as can be read from the original Op-Ed by Laurie David, for you Curb fans that’s Larry David’s wife, the NSTA does not have a history of abstention from politics. While they claim to be wary of offering a "political" endorsement of the film, they have been content to accept over $6 million dollars from Exxon Mobile since 1996. Even more shocking NSTA's list of corporate donors also includes Shell Oil and the American Petroleum Institute (API), which funds NSTA's Web site on the science of energy. NSTA has also distributed a video produced by API called "You Can't Be Cool Without Fuel."
As one would expect the NSTA has issued a response, and as always things aren’t as black and white as we would like them to be. It would be unfair to demonize this group of teachers after being put in such a difficult position. However, there is little question that having some of your biggest sponsors as the target of a video would certainly weigh heavily in a decision about whether to distribute the DVD.
More importantly, however, is the fact that the vast majority of “An Inconvenient Truth” is supported by an even vaster majority of scientists. Next time someone informs you that “the verdict is still out on global warming” ask them where they are they getting their information. Bill O’Reilly? Rush Limbaugh? While these men may attract an incredible amount of daily listeners they are not scientists and it is very likely they, like most of us, have no idea what climatologists are talking about. Below is a short clip from the movie, if you haven’t seen it yet it is certainly worth your while.
So let’s turn to the facts, and let me preface this by saying that like all other theories in the soft sciences, there are still questions about global warming. However, when the top scientists of climatology, geology, and biology are in agreement it would seem prudent to listen.
In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. This report explicitly endorses the view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the science community. It begins by stating that, “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century.” The full report can be read here.
On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments that concluded that there is, “clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone).” And went on to say that, “observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone.” The full report can be read here.
In December 2004, Science published an essay by geologist and science historian Naomi Oreskesthat summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. 75% of the abstracts were placed in categories which either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view of human caused climate change. 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate and made no statement about the causes of change. This means that out of 928 peer reviewed scientific articles not one argued against the basic ideas of human caused climate change. It was pointed out thatsome of the authors in the last 25% may believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. The full article can be read here.

By now I hope that my thesis is clear, even if the NSTA would like to stay out of political battles, the overwhelming scientific evidence is in support of this theory and as a result should be taught regardless of popular opinion. I am dismayed to realize the parallels between the teaching of climate change and the equally verifiable evolution; both are strongly supported scientific theory and yet poorly understood by the general populace. It is a shame that due to those special interests who hope to muddy the waters by casting “doubt” on otherwise extremely important science so many remain in the dark about these important issues. We as Americans need to learn to disregard the ten second statements from our favorite pundits, this world we live in is important enough that we should take some time to listen and read articles by people who know what they are talking about.
In regard to “An Inconvenient Truth” I think Eric Steig, a climatologist and isotope geochemist, summarizes things well in his article for RealClimate.com, “It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research…for the most part, I think Gore gets the science right...the small errors don't detract from Gore's main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change.”



