View 548 December 8 - 14, 2008 (original) (raw)
Friday, December 12, 2008
Arthur Kantrowitz, RIP, November 29, 2008
I learned of his death when I began writing the entry that follows. I knew Arky Kantrowitz from the early days of the L-5 Society; he was Chairman of the Board. I used his research on laser powered space launch systems in many of my stories, most notably in the stories collected in EXILE -- AND GLORY!. Some of those stories were nominated for awards. Arky was well known for his spacefaring advocacy, and also for his passionate arguments for a science court to supplement the US Court systems. My friend Ben Bova worked with Kantrowitz at AVCO Everett. He got a lot done in 95 years. RIP
Obama and Energy Policy
And now the bad news...
Or at least the threat. Obama has appointed his energy and environmental team,. Now it's not all bad. Steven Chu clearly knows a lot about physics and energy, and his energy research goals are well worth supporting. Good research will always pay off, and supporting good research will entice more people into science and engineering, and I make no doubt that Dr. Chu has the acumen to see that much of the money will be well spent. I have long said that I consider the NSF budget money gives me the best return for my tax dollars.
The rest of the team is another story. Many of them have to be either deluded or mendacious.
The late Arthur Kantrowitz was an advocate of a science court system to supplement the US Court System. (more) The devil is in the details in such matters. Is this to be a legal and Constitutional Court, or a public forum? Who is to enforce its rules of evidence? How will the expert jurors be paid? But given all those questions, the need is apparent: we have seen the need in the rush to judgment about global warming and its causes, the total distortion of the dangers of dioxin, the silicone breast implant lawsuits, and a bunch of other cases which transferred billions and billions, enriched lawyers, and contributed to the economic collapse of the nation.
Kantrowitz was often accused of elitism, and of course he was guilty because he was right: there are many questions of great importance that must be settled, and entrusting the settlement to juries not merely ignorant of the science involved but possible unable to understand the scientific reasoning, is to say that the eloquence of lawyers, themselves often unable to understand that actual arguments, should be the deciding factor. This seems a dangerous way to decide questions of great importance.
The energy crisis we will experience if Obama's energy team gets its way comes to mind here. On the record, these people really and truly believe that man-made global warming is the most important thing in the world, and that the US has to place itself in a position of economic inferiority in order to "do its part" in reducing carbon emissions even though China and India have not bought the man made global warming hypothesis -- and, witness the enormous pollution cloud that hangs over Asia, value cheaper energy and greater production over environmental factors and won't act to reduce carbon emissions even if they do believe the hypothesis.
Indeed, my fear is that the Obama team really is sincere, and are not just cynical beneficiaries of the man made global warming craze.
Now: what makes me so certain that the man made global warming hypothesis is wrong? I am not certain of it. I am certain that the evidence I have seen so far shows that CO2 isn't the cause of the observed global warming trend which started about 1776. I am not certain that the warming trend will continue: there's increasing evidence that it has ended and we may be getting colder. I am not convinced that warmer climates such as we experienced during the time of the Viking settlements in Greenland, when Nova Scotia was called "Vinland" would be a terrible thing. I am not convinced that even if the United States bankrupts itself by driving the cost of energy here higher and higher it will make one whit of difference in the temperature of the world either in our lifetimes or the lifetime of our children.
What I would like to see is an actual scientific examination of the evidence. My guess is that a real examination will determine that we don't have enough evidence to warrant crash programs that cost trillions or even billions. My guess is that any competent and impartial examination of the theories and actual observations (including examination of the reliability of those observations -- are those numbers real or are there outside influences?) will determine that we have got to go get more evidence, more reliable observations, and much better models.
So: I can wish Dr. Chu well when he (very likely) denounces the Bush Administration for its war on science and demands that we invest a lot more in energy research and development. I can hope that he will advocate more fission nuclear power, and make it a lot easier to build those power plants. I can't say I have similar hopes for the rest of his energy/environment team.
More environmental regulation as we enter a depression is a formula for disaster. The correlation between economic growth and energy cost is high and negative: as energy costs go up, productivity takes a nosedive. From everything I have seen, Obama's energy team is unaware of this, or, more likely, doesn't care: they believe that environment is more important than jobs and the economy.
My one hope is that Obama is smart enough to realize that he is betting his career and his legacy on hysteria, not science, and he can control the juggernaut he seems to have created. Otherwise we are headed for disaster. Of course there were many Russians who kept telling themselves "If only the Tsar knew...." Hope springs eternal.
What I want is to see Arky's Science Court established: a public, adversarial, impartial examination of the evidence for and against man made global warming and the dangers thereof. And public: not a meeting of a bunch of eggheads in secret who strain like a gearbox and produce a document. Not the farce of the UN report which many of its authors repudiated. A public trial, with scientific rules of evidence.
It isn't likely, but we can hope.
