Editorial Comment

	Vol. 224 No. 9
PERRY A. FISCHER, EDITOR

The night was sultry. The recent heat wave in Europe has sparked more rhetoric about the horrors of GW – global warming. The warring sides continue to accuse each other of idiocy, using the most extreme arguments that they can think of. Well, I’m no stranger to one-upmanship.

The anti-GWers make unrealistic assumptions to support their case: that the Kyoto Protocol would be adopted unaltered; that it would achieve 100% compliance; that, for reasons always unexplained, efficient use of energy would stop its relentless increase; that countries would choose the most costly solutions to meet Kyoto targets; that the Kyoto Protocol, if adopted, will destroy businesses, especially our industry – indeed, economic life as we know it. And so on.

The enviro-whackos say that rising sea levels will inundate our coastline for miles inland; deserts will occur in areas once lush; more, and more intense, storms will destroy and kill more. Then it gets worse. 

I’m not a big fan of these alarmists, but I do enjoy their entertainment value. None of these things will likely come to pass, regardless of Kyoto. I suspect that the truth lies between the extremes. Imagine that.

Two arguments that have always puzzled me for their combination of outstanding propaganda value, equaled only by their lack of logic: the need for proof; and natural variability.

Although lack of proof is often cited as one of the leading reasons why GW is bogus, no one is sure what constitutes proof. Is it the legal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt?” If so, GW falls well short of proof. But if we waited for almost anything to achieve proven status, very little work would get done. Our industry, for example, relies on concepts of risk management and risk/reward ratios. Foolish indeed is the explorationist who bets the farm on a wildcat. When you hear “lack of proof” cited as a reason why GW is not real, think “propaganda.” Proof is a luxury few people should indulge in, more so if you’re a scientist.

Natural variability, per se, is another red herring. It is incredibly unimportant to the GW argument, although often cited to the contrary. It’s like asking if you prefer a natural or an unnatural death. (Is there a third choice, please?) Natural variability is of academic interest, as it should be. For the rest of us, including the policy makers, it sounds important, but means nothing.

Rarely is natural variability separated from its causes, except in highly academic settings. This inability to separate cause and effect is an essential ingredient of anti-GW propaganda. It also has religious overtones for some, but at least that makes logical sense: The cause of all effects is, “It’s in God’s hands.” A reader’s letter epitomized the view, “When you’re in an airplane, looking out at the clouds over the vast plains, you realize how powerless humans are, and how arrogant to think that we can affect the weather.” It’s that old, often heard sentiment, “You might as well try and hold back the tide.” (But don’t tell that to the Dutch!)

Suppose a potentially life-destroying comet is discovered in 2005. Low surface brightness and other complicating factors put the best estimates at a 15 – 25% chance that it will hit the Earth in three years. Astronomers say they’ll know more in 18 months, but by then, it may be too close to change its trajectory. Should governments spend $50 million to study the problem, and $5 billion to change the trajectory with massive nuclear explosions? The enviro-nut leftists join sides with the phar-right: one side doesn’t want to risk the plutonium pollution from launching multiple H-bombs; the other believes it’s a misguided plot by liberal “do-gooder” scientists and, in any event, photos of the comet were made in a Hollywood studio. They agree to leave it in God’s hands. Meanwhile, the comet draws closer...

When dealing with complex issues where nothing is certain – like exploratory drilling and global warming – it’s better to pick a twisted path among rational prospects than to run with the howlers on either side. Dedicated monkey-brained schemes, such as pumping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to the seafloor, are stupid. It’s extremely costly to pump the volumes needed to make a difference, the CO₂ might not stay put, and it has no other “benefit.” So is the Bonzo-brained idea of massive seeding of the ocean with iron to create algae blooms to soak up CO₂. There are many more of these dumb, desperate ideas.

But pumping CO₂ into coal seams to sequester it underground while enhancing methane production is smart. Putting flare gas to work by generating electricity in micro-turbines makes sense. Stopping, preventing and, especially, not ignoring every tiny gas leak on a producing or processing facility adds safety. All of these ideas – and many more – can make money.

It’s true that causes of global warming are not agreed on – yes, it still could be the sun or unknown earth processes. And yes, those hotly debated temperature increases fall well within natural variation. So what? There is agreement, well beyond consensus, that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, and that the ice is melting, especially glaciers and the arctic ice cap. Do you really need proof to know that, regardless of the cause of a fire (GW), or the fuel that it’s burning, throwing gasoline (CO₂) on it will make it burn hotter?

BP’s CEO John Browne does not work in mysterious ways. He says BP greatly exceeded Kyoto targets – a reduction in CO₂ emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012 – and did it in less than five years. His two overriding themes on this accomplishment: attitude is crucial; and it’s arguable whether it cost the company or it squeaked out a profit.

Simply put, here’s what I’m saying:

We make important decisions every day based on probability, rarely proof.

Attitude is paramount.

If you embrace the concept, while avoiding the extremes, and look for ways to profit, you might make a mint.

I wonder what the argument would sound like if the consensus were that another Ice Age was fast approaching. Would we all be encouraged to burn more fossil fuels?

I almost forgot about that comet. It’s 2006, and scientists think that it’s composed of several chunks, like comet Shoemaker-Levy that hit Jupiter. Due to possible interactions with the Moon and its gravity, they say it’s too late to do anything about it. The odds of a life-destroying impact are put at 42%. They point out, however, that there have been several mass extinctions in Earth’s past, and this event, should it occur, would fall well within the realm of natural variability.

Now, don’t you feel better? 

Personally, I’m not too thrilled with the natural variability of a mosquito bite. Pass the repellent.