Scientists, politics, and global warming, Pt. 2

Robyn Blumner, editorial columnist for The St. Petersburg Times, coughed up an editorial a few weeks ago on the political leanings of scientists. Or that's what the column seemed to deal with based on the title. In part 1 of my response, we saw Blumner start with preposterous assertions and follow with a digression into the supposed gullibility of Republicans in thinking that government involvement in health care will lead to government-controlled decisions on the life and death of patients.

By the end of part 1, we had detected no answer to the question of why scientists are seldom Republicans, unless it was the implied answer that scientists aren't stupid enough to be Republicans. Though that would hardly be the rigorous and evidence-based way to address the question.

But let's do our part. On with the examination of Blumner's column:

Since the Sonia Sotomayor nomination we've been hearing about the GOP's Hispanic deficit. Only 26 percent of Latino registered voters now say they identify with or lean toward the Republican Party. But that's a full house compared with scientists. Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the Pew Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the GOP, while fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats or lean Democratic.

Finally, Blumner produces at least some data we can look at, enabling us to assess some evidence. As for Latino voters, that seems to be nothing but digression. Latinos are largely Roman Catholic (traditionally Democratic based on social justice issues), and many in addition are from a Mexico with a government to the left of our own. It fails to count as a relevant comparison, in other words.

Blumner may have exaggerated the "fully 81 percent" (55 percent identifying as Democrat plus 25 identified as "leaning Democrat" comes to only 80 on my calculator, and even 80.9 is not "fully" 81 percent). But that's a bit of a quibble. What is the reason why the 80 percent or so identify on the liberal side of the ledger? Are they just so much smarter than the other 20 percent?

We shouldn't be surprised that people who are open to evidence-based thinking have abandoned the Republican Party. The GOP has proudly adopted the mantle of the "Terri Schiavo, global warming shwarming" party with the Bush administration helping cement the image by persistently subverting science to serve a religious agenda or corporate greed.

Oh. So maybe many of these scientists were Republicans but switched based on the combination of ethical issues and the global warming dogma? I don't see that in the data, but it seems very fair of Blumner to allow that scientists may have only recently begun to favor the Democrats. Is this supposed to be her rationale for the trend among scientists?

But what worries me is not the shrunken relevancy of the GOP, a party in which 56 percent of its members oppose funding of embryonic stem cell research, 39 percent believe humans have always existed on Earth in their present form, and in which only 30 percent say human activity is warming the planet.

I would think that Blumner would go all a-quiver at shrinking GOP relevancy. But where is she getting those statistics from? Her arse? I can't speak for all Republicans, but the objection is fairly stated in terms of opposing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Blumner ought to be able to appreciate the conscience concerns involved after working with the ACLU in her former career as a lawyer.

As for humans as a cause of global warming, I think conservatives are smart to remain suspicious of the global warming dogma. And one wonders how scientists will feel when next year's Pew Research survey asks them if they are aware of Obama administration efforts to suppress scientific findings that run contrary to that dogma.

Again, the underlying argument seems to be that Republicans are simply stupid. But rather than using real evidence, Blumner appears to rely on the appeal to ridicule. That is the weapon of the sleazy lawyer, not the persuasive tool of the person guided by evidence and reason.

Back to what really worries Blumner:

It is that this nation's future depends upon people who don't think that way and the Republican Party is closing the door to them.

That is Blumner's expression of hyper-partisanship. Serious measures aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions will cripple the U.S. economy. Let Blumner explain how we end up with a strong United States in the future with a ruined economy. Her fear is not for the United States as we know it, most likely. Blumner probably favors rule by the elites forced on the foolish masses. Your desire for cars and jobs is not conducive to human survival. So the government will run the economy instead of you. For the sake of your survival. Your freedom means little if the human race is otherwise doomed. Something along those lines, though Blumner herself may not even realize where her thinking leads.

It is through historical science that we know that the earth has been through warming and cooling periods in the past. The evidence that a warming period represents an existential threat to the United States is thin at best.

And so far from Blumner, we still only have the implied explanation that few scientists are Republicans because Republicans are stupid.

Look for part 3, coming soon.

A New Era for Science

Two science-related news stories have stuck with me this week, though admittedly the second one is rather new.


Antarctic Ice Melt

Morning Edition, March 19, 2009 · A huge chunk of Antarctic ice can't withstand nonstop global warming, according to a new study published in the latest Nature magazine. And if it melts, the ice will raise the global sea level by 15 or 20 feet — or more.
(NPR)

OK so far? Then the story quickly turns puzzling:

The ice in question is called the West Antarctic ice sheet. In some ways, it's the planet's Achilles' heel. It holds a vast amount of water, locked up as ice, and it's sitting below sea level, so it's inherently unstable.

So ... ice below sea level is supposed to raise the level of the oceans as it melts?

First, I doubt that this notion came directly from any scientist interviewed by NPR. Second, if a scientist did say it then the statement should require a pretty good explanation. After all, about the only way that a block of ice melting below sea level can significantly affect the level of the ocean is if the hollow in which the ice is located goes dry. As in no ice and no water either.

Remember, water is that odd substance that is more compact in its liquid state. That's why ice floats, and it's also why a glass of ice water stays at about the same level when the ice melts.

The Reuters version of the story clarifies things a bit better:

The floating ice shelf won't elevate sea levels if melts because it is already displacing water. The real threat comes when the ice sheet behind, which is below sea level, is exposed to the ocean.

Though the "real threat" remains a bit mysterious without further reading ...

The modeling showed that when the West Antarctic ice sheet collapsed, and the much larger East Antarctic ice sheet continued to melt at the edges, global sea level rose seven meters above present day levels, said Pennsylvania University's David Pollard, who led the study.

Did higher sea levels cause the melt or did the melting cause higher sea levels? Or both, with plenty of scope for adjusting the percentage?


The Science of Obama

President Obama generates an aura of awe surrounding his intellect, including his understanding of science, though we don't seem any solid indication that he grasps science any better than the average person. He did end up a lawyer rather than a scientist, after all.

Power Line pointed out a rather strange application of science by Obama with respect to Red River flooding, via The Star-Tribune:

In a White House interview with a handful of reporters, including Janell Cole of the Forum of Fargo, the president said the current flooding cannot necessarily be blamed on global warming, but he said it should be a signal to act.

"If you look at the flooding that's going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, 'If you see an increase of 2 degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?' " the president told the reporters. "That indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously."

If the two degree increase happened overnight and in the spring, then the flooding would be worse, assuming the same amount of ice melt going into the river. But a two degree increase over time probably lessens the amount of ice to begin with, so there's less melt to go into the river in the first place.

Perhaps the president had in mind a "The Day After Tomorrow" scenario where North Dakota is struck by sudden torrential rains as a result of global warming. Or something.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this one serves as a strong candidate for Ed Morrissey's Obamateurism of the Day over at Hot Air.

Mar 27, 09: Provided a forgotten "is" for the first graph

How life began?

It seems to me that a we're skipping a step or two.

LIFE on Earth was created by the spectacular collision of continents millions of years ago that oxygenated the planet, new research has revealed.

Massive seismic events created "supermountains" twice the height of the Himalayas, which were then eroded quickly and released large amounts of nutrients such as iron and phosphorus into the oceans. This led to an explosion of algae and bacteria, which helped photosynthesis and thus created oxygen.
(scotsman.com)

Apparently we're supposed to infer something in there to the effect that iron + phosphorous + ocean = algae and bacteria.

It's dangerous allowing journalists to report science. I'm reminded somewhat of the old Monty Python sketch, "How To Do It."

Cleaner air, warmer planet?

GOODBYE air pollution and smoky chimneys, hello brighter days. That's been the trend in Europe for the past three decades - but unfortunately cleaning up the skies has allowed more of the sun's rays to pierce the atmosphere, contributing to at least half the warming that has occurred.
(newscientist.com)

I have wondered about the role of air pollution in terms of global warming, even to the point of wondering whether spikes in volcanic activity play a role in cooling trends. The above story appears to offer at least some confirmation of a prominent role.

Maybe all we need to do in order to defeat global warming is disband the EPA.

Move over, hole in the ozone layer. Scientists find hole in the universe

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A giant hole in the Universe is devoid of galaxies, stars and even lacks dark matter, astronomers said on Thursday.

The team at the University of Minnesota said the void is nearly a billion light-years across and they have no idea why it is there.
(Reuters)

Just speaking in terms of averages, there's a good chance this one will eventually trace to George W. Bush.