cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
robinson_m
New Contributor

Why don't we (ACS) speak to the incorrectness of global warming?

Why don't we collectively, as the largest Professional Society, speak out about how mislead and misguided this "global warming caused by man" is? Indeed, in geological times, global warming would happen right before every ice age; we weren't there for those many geological events. I would be surprised if we (ACS membership) didn't have a strong consensus that Al Gore et al are way off base and use bad data. But irregardless of a consensus, Cap&Trade shoots us in both feet economically, so we should speak out.

0 Kudos
8 Replies
minichml
New Contributor

Re: Why don't we (ACS) speak to the incorrectness of global warming?

What if some (probably a lot) of the ACS members do not believe that global warming IS incorrect?

0 Kudos
robinson_m
New Contributor

Re: Why don't we (ACS) speak to the incorrectness of global warming?

ACS should take polls of their members and get in the news.

0 Kudos
PeterBonk
New Contributor

Re: Why don't we (ACS) speak to the incorrectness of global warming?

Mike and Martha,

I was "circulating" an Open Letter to the ACS Board of Directors asking that they revisit, review and hopefully revise the ACS Public Policy Statement on Climate Change.  Please check out the attachment for details, and by all means feel free to contact me!

Pete

0 Kudos
Heirtzler
New Contributor III

Re: Why don't we (ACS) speak to the incorrectness of global warming?

"ACS should take polls of their members and get in the news."

OK, sure. But one caveat: we only poll those who are accredited and acknowledged climate scientists. After all, while everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, not all opinions garner equal weight. What is your background? While you ponder that question, you may wish to examine the followingwebsite: http://www.realclimate.org/

0 Kudos
PeterBonk
New Contributor

Re: Why don't we (ACS) speak to the incorrectness of global warming?

Hello Fenton,

Thanks for the comment.  I would be the first to agree that science is not,  nor should be, democratic in that "truth" is not decided by a vote and majority rule.  We all know of many a beautiful theory shot down by an ugly fact.

The ACS Public Policy Statement on Climate Change (or any other Public Policy Statement (PPS) the Society issues, for that matter) is meant as guidance to the public and government on issues of science. As such, they generally reflect current thinking on the topic.  But an ACS PPS, by its issuance by the Society, in fact also has the implied assent of speaking for all of the ACS, and herein lays part of the problem.

Science, esp. forecasting or forward looking as is the PPS on Climate Change, is rarely unequivocal.

The least the ACS could do is to provide for a dissenting voice or counterpoint.  After all, Decisions by the US Supreme Court are rarely unanimous, and the dissents serve an important purpose.  Law isn’t science, but both the law and the observations that underlie scientific knowledge are subject to different interpretations. 

Yes, guidance is meant to be aid the decision process.  But again, this is not the case of investigating a situation where all the facts are known or knowable.  A minority report or dissenting report in the ACS PPS would be intellectually more honest.

I would also argue that ACS members and chemists in general are in a much better situation to judge the technical and scientific underpinnings of the global warming debate better than, say, Al Gore or some Hollywood celebrity, that by their celebrity alone get a public voice.  Most chemists have an enough of an understanding of kinetics, solubilities, equilibria, spectroscopy, radiation, etc., that can be brought to bear to weigh the data, critically assess the conclusions drawn from the data, and draw an informed opinion on the topic. One does not need to be a climate scientist.

Of course if this were a mere "academic" argument about some esoteric point of chemistry no one would really care.  It is the policy implications that are part and parcel with this that has many upset, as the debate ranges far from the science and into public policy and economics, and the winners/losers of the political process.  The policy decisions, if enacted, will have major, irreversible economic consequences.  There won’t be any do overs if the science behind the policy is wrong or incomplete.

My background is organic chemistry. I have a Ph.D. and have worked in the fine chemical, pharmaceutical and polymer areas for over 20 years.  It still amazes me how painstaking the work on the Greenland ice core data studies had to be to tease knowledge out of small differences of isotope ratios.

But it has been my personal history that has always made me skeptical of global warming claims.  Having grown up in Michigan, and lived in Wisconsin and Rhode Island, I have always been surrounded by ready reminders of recent, geologically speaking, the last glacial period really was.  Temperatures are going to rise in an interglacial epoch.

Does CO2 have an effect?  Of course it does.  It is the extent and significance that is up for debate.  My conclusion at this point is that the changes will be minor, and that society will readily adapt, as it always has.

You have to admit that listing CO2- absolutely essential to all life on this planet- as a pollutant is absurd. Unfortunately, such a designation follows a perverse logic if one thinks that adding CO2 to the environment is the worst thing mankind has done.

We know things are rarely clear cut- consider the debate within the chemistry community and highlighted in C&EN about the economics and energy balance of using corn based ethanol as a fuel. This is a much simpler system than global climate.

Again, thanks for writing.

Pete

0 Kudos
PeterBonk
New Contributor

Re: Why don't we (ACS) speak to the incorrectness of global warming?

Micheal and others- If you have not yet seen my Open Letter to the ACS Board about revisiting/reviewing and hopefully revising the ACS Public Policy Statement on Climate Change please contact me at peterjbonk@gmail.com

Thanks

Pete

0 Kudos
david_shane
New Contributor

Re: Why don't we (ACS) speak to the incorrectness of global warming?

Interesting that I came across this posting right after the hacking of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.  (If you don't know, a large amount of material has been made public, including many emails that at least appear to show activity verging on or indeed actually being scientific and legal misconduct.  See here for one summary if you have no idea what I'm talking about: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html )

Regardless of how you feel about the climate change issue, I think we can all acknowledge that the threat has been high politicized, and has been both exploited and exaggerated by politicians who intend to use it for their own ends.  And this, combined with events like this hacking, have caused a significant portion of the population to lose their trust in the objectivity of scientists, and in our ability to reach the real and verifiable truth.  And that's quite bad.  And indeed, while ACS members can do whatever they want, I do feel like scientific organizations themselves should be very hesitant to wade into issues like this, and make pronouncements on behalf of all their members, lest they end up discrediting the scientific endeavor even more in the eyes of the public.

0 Kudos
01447339
New Contributor

Re: Why don't we (ACS) speak to the incorrectness of global warming?

I said the same thing in an later post (see: https://communities.acs.org/thread/1999?tstart=0). Now we see that there is truely cause for alarm at the bad science behind so-called global warming with the "Climategate" scandal emerging this week. I agree with Peter Bonk and would I love to see a dissenting opinion. His Open Letter is a good start, but we need to make it clear to the ACS and to the public at large that not all ACS members endorse the official ACS position on Climate Change.

0 Kudos