February 18, 2005
Global Warming
Well what do you know? It's caused by humans after all:
The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday."The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."
Of course, most scientifically-literate and reasonable people have long known that by far the most likely cause of global warming is humans. Speaking of which, Anna has a nice post about this topic with links to documentary evidence of shrinking icebergs and the like. However, even with all this, I strongly doubt that those who would prefer to stick their heads in the sand and claim "not enough is known" to definitively blame human activity will continue to do so. The creationist and ID contigents should be ample proof of people's ability to ignore scientific evidence when it contradicts their pre-existing beliefs. That said, I don't think we'll see an environmental apocalypse if it's still possible to avoid one. Since the 70s the world's recognition of environmental problems and attempts to improve them has increased significantly. The only issue I'm still very worried about is tropical deforestation. The rainforests are already showing the effects of global warming. The tallest trees are growing even faster due to increased levels of carbon dioxide, thus blocking more sunlight from the smaller trees. Rainforests are supposed to be at a state of equilibrium. Dramatic changes threaten to disrupt the entire ecosystem, making the forests less efficient at cleaning the air and threatening the habitats of numerous species we have yet to even discover. The planet has already lost most of its lung capacity; we can't afford to lose much more. There's also the problem with a chaotic system like the world environment in that small changes can cause major repercussions. There is the distinct possibility that a regular rise in temperature of only a few degrees could induce rapid and drastic changes in the environment. Even if the ecosystem is adaptive and flexible, it can be likened to a rubber band—you can only stretch it so far before it snaps. For example, there have been studies on insects and birds in England show their normally interlocked life cycles going out of phase. The slightly warmer temperatures causes flowers to blossom earlier. The insects who depend on those flowers for food sources have evolved so that they hatch at what was the right time to take maximum advantage of these flowers, but are now catching on the tail-end of the blossoming. This reduces the number of insects that survive. In turn, this reduces the food supply for the birds that eat these insects. Since some organisms base their blossoming/hatching/molting/etc on the temperature, while others use other timers, a change in one variable can throw off the whole machinery. For a more rigorous and detailed explanation of this phenomenon, read this. I like to think that even if most people don't know the details that I've just mentioned, they at least recognize that global warming is a Bad Thing and, if no longer preventable, at least reversible or able to be slowed. That, however, does not mean the politicians or corporations care. There is too much profit available to companies willing to abuse the world. Humans as a whole have a difficulty finding anything beyond their immediate circumstances threatening, so we don't see the American populace concerned enough about things happening across the globe and twenty years from now to pressure our politicians to really change things. Bush's insistence that global warming does not exist should alone be enough to cast serious doubts on his ability to lead the nation. It represents an alarming disregard for science and the welfare of the earth's future populations. Instead, people either agree with him or discount the issue as less important than more immediate problems like war, taxes, and health care. As with many, many other issues, the best solution I can see is a better-educated populace. That, however, is a whole 'nother problem.
From you wording I am not sure if you make the make the common mistake of conflating biblical literalists (aka, creationist) with IDers. They are not the same but creationist have done their best to place themselves in the ID camp because it makes them look smarter than they are. Sadly this association tarnishes the IDers more than it helps the creationist.
But in either case I wonder to what extent you have read or understand what IDers propose. They do not deny evolution or a world that is billions of years old. They do propose that, as former British atheist Anthony Flew recently said, the "unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life" indicates "intelligence must have been involved." ID is a new field of study and the burden of proof certainly resides with those who defend it. But to dismiss those who support ID as ignoring "scientific evidence when it contradicts their pre-existing beliefs" is unfair.
I have read quite a bit of ID arguments as well as many dismantlings of their arguments (Pharyngula is a particularly good site for this). Perhaps ID is correct, but since its proponents are usually not scientists, have yet to propose a testable theory, and, from what I can tell, spend their time just trying to punch holes in evolutionary theory through misunderstandings of that theory, I have a tendency to discredit their arguments. I don't see how one can propose that an intelligence was behind the productions of life while accepting evolution. If evolution is fact, then there is no need for the intervention of an intelligence. Do you have links to any pro-ID sites that lay out the case in scientific terms with testable experiments (such as predictions of the fossil record, etc, a la evolutionary theory)? I would be interested in reading an argument that is pro-ID yet scientific rather than anti-evolution. The latter is all I've ever been able to find. Thanks.
You are much more of a science buff than I am and I haven't followed the debate that closely so I can't really answer you questions adequately. As for links all I really know is the Discovery Institute whose site I assume you have been to. If not you can go here: http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign and here: http://www.discovery.org/csc/scientificResearch/ as starting points.
Given the inevitable overlap of philosophy and science and given my general scientific ignorance I can't tell you to what extent ID provides testable hypothesis. This is in part why I said the burden is on them right now. But I believe my overall point remains valid. It is unfair to characterize IDers as anti-scientific and irrational people with their heads stuck in the ground. They include accomplished university level scientists whose writings have appeared in peer reviewed journals. They may be wrong but they are not sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "I'm not listening" whenever a Darwinist talks.
As a caveat I will acknowledge that I could be entirely wrong about them and that my lack of scientific knowledge may prevent me from understanding just how thoroughly discredited they are.
Yeah, I have been to their site. The Discovery Institute is one of the primary offenders, actually. I will gladly admit that I do not know enough on my own to discredit their arguments in many cases, so a fair amount of my knowledge on the matter is second-hand and assumes that the sources from which I get my information are trustworthy and knowledgeable. That said, from what I've read on the matter, I'm convinced that evolution is true and ID is simply creationism in a stolen lab coat. Maybe there are plenty of IDers that are honestly trying to do scientific research and question the dominant theories, but if so, they seem to be in a miniscule minority. Most ID proponents seem to promote the theory for idealogical/religious reasons. Btw, a good resource for further discussion of this is Talk Origins. It's devoted to debunking creationist claims, not ID, but it's a good starting point since there's a fair amount of overlap in the arguments. The next place I would go would be the aforementioned Pharyngula as well as The Panda's Thumb. The former is a microbiologist's site where you can find many detailed explanations of evolutionary mechanisms and critiques of ID theories (as well as some very strident liberalism and atheism, but you can filter to just see the science posts) and the latter is a group blog maintained by a number of scientists. They both also have links to other good resources.