Climate Change, Science and Belief and Bret Stephens

Bret Stephens is a journalist I've not previously heard of, but his two columns in the Op Ed of the New York Times deserve attention and more than Ross Douthat, he may be a conservative voice worth listening to.

Bret Stephens

His original Op Ed simply warned against being too sure of what science tells us, because, as we have all learned in the pursuit of science, the closer you get to being 100% sure you know the truth, the more likely you are to be wrong.
Science is not just a work in progress; it's one long argument.

I have often remarked, to the irritation of my children and my colleagues I learned only two things in medical school which I still believe today: The heart pumps blood to the brain; the thyroid is controlled by the pituitary.  A bit of hyperbole on my part, you understand; take that more seriously than literally.  But you get the point. Our understanding of how things work, of "truth" in science changes as we learn more.


So it has been with climate science. I do not know enough about geology or climate science to know with any real certainty that our climate is actually changing. I do understand we are talking geologic time, which is measured in 10's of thousands of years. So how do we know about what temperatures were like 20,000 years ago?  I have read about core samples of Artic ice in which carbon dioxide has been measured, but I'm not really sure what that means.

With the rest of my fellow citizens, I am inclined to think if the vast majority of climate scientists believe the planet is warming, is headed toward trouble, they may be correct. But they may not be. The chance they may be correct is enough for me to agree we ought to hedge our bets and to push for more solar power, wind power, maybe electric cars.  What do we have to lose? If we're wrong, well we still have new sources of energy.

This bear believes in global warming

But we risk doing stupid things when we marry science to politics, and Stephens provides the perfect example talking about the decision to grow corn to add corn alcohol to gas tanks, which turned out to cost more oil growing the corn and to add more CO2 to the atmosphere than the gas without alcohol did. But once the farmers got that new source of income, that was a policy from which there was no turning back, engraved in stone.

Oh, the Holocaust is a hoax.

The best part of Stephens' article was the reply column he wrote in response to comments from readers. At every medical conference, the best part of any presentation is the question and answer period and the same is true for the Op Ed and Q and A which followed.

Bumper stick from Mr. Trump's limousine

For one thing, it made Stephens crystalize his reservations about Mr. Trump and I have rarely seen a more succinct summary:

There’s no need to convince me on your first two points. Our 45th president is a man who seems to regard rumor as fact, opinion as evidence, wishes as truth — and truth as whatever he can get away with. Hence the conspiracy theories about his predecessor’s birthplace, the lies about the size of his Inauguration Day crowds, and so on. As for your reference to some evangelical voters, it’s astonishing that so many in this country seem not to have gotten past the Scopes trial.    

And, lest there be any remaining doubts: I subscribe to the theory of evolution, I vaccinate my kids, I don’t smoke because it causes cancer, the earth is not flat, and the world is warming.

So now we have a new voice and one whose thoughts we should listen to and digest.
Another gold star for the New York Times. The editors have finally figured out how important the interactive nature of news and opinion can be.