KTOO’s Anna Canny recently brought us the important story of how profit-induced capitalist climate change is accelerating the melting of Alaska’s receding glaciers and ice fields. We go in deep to get to the bottom of the science.
According to the KTOO story, Bethan Davis, a glaciologist from some college in England, has deduced that the Juneau ice field melted twice as quickly during the last 10 years as it did before 2010, and is fast approaching a “tipping point” which will inevitably result in the irreversible melting of all of the ice. We attempted to interview Ms. Davis, but international calling was blocked on our only available telephone and our reporter was unable to call her mother to get her to authorize T-Mobile to enable international calling on phone’s account before the story’s deadline, so we reluctantly contacted an American expert instead.
“Dr. Davis is absolutely correct!” noted Dr. Bill Haskins, Chair of the Department of Anthropological Catastrophes at Evercomb College. “We are no doubt reaching a ‘tipping point’ based on her findings. Past that point, you can just kiss the Juneau ice field goodbye,” he said.
However, Dr. Haskins, like Dr. Davis, was reluctant to elaborate further on the ice field’s “tipping point.” “The thing is, is that when you make up a ‘tipping point,’ you really don’t want to set a firm date for it, because if that date passes and you need some more grant money to get by on, you’ll need to come up with another tipping point. That’s how the science works, these days. If I commit to an actual date for a ‘tipping point’, and it turns out I was wrong, then there goes my grant money down the drain, but if I just make up a ‘tipping point’ that’s open-ended and that keeps everybody worried enough, it looks like I’m making a scientifically valid prediction, when in reality I can never be proven wrong.”
Dr. Haskins went on to explain the special pressures facing modern scientists. “Now, if I were a politician instead of a grant-funded scientist, then I could get away with setting dates for my ‘tipping points’ like Al Gore did, because I wouldn’t need the grants. If a politician’s ‘tipping point’ passes, they just pay some other scientist to give them a new one. But I don’t have the luxury of multi-million dollar book and movies deals to pay to hire scientists, like Al Gore does,” Dr. Haskins said.
Dr. Haskins continued, “I’m old enough to remember when the money followed actual, real science. Back in those days, if a scientist made a breakthrough, businesses, governments and schools would build on the breakthrough by backing further research with money. Nowadays, it’s the science that follows the government money. The government decides what it wants the science to do and then it doles out grants to scientists who are willing to do what the government wants. From a scientist’s point of view, things are so much easier now, because instead of having to spend months thinking up ways to find answers, now all we have to do is start with the answer we want and then cherry-pick through data to make it look like the the answer is right.”
The old system required a lot more thought and work. “We were slaves to the scientific method back in those days,” Haskins recalled. “The word ‘consensus’ had no place in our work – all that mattered was the data. Our goal was to create, test and challenge hypotheses. Data ruled the day. That took a LOT of work, time and trouble thinking up new ideas and designing experiments,” he related. “Today, it is SO much easier to fit the data to the conclusion you’re looking for and then to rely on the ‘consensus’ to avoid actual scrutiny of your methods. “Data doesn’t rule us anymore,” Dr. Haskins said, “we rule data.”
Dr. Haskins spoke about the social benefits of this sea change change in modern science. “In the old days, science was viewed by many people as just a tool to make money. It wasn’t long after we discovered radio waves that businesses funded radio science and broadcasting took off. Same thing with computers and the internet. Look at the story of penicillin and the development of modern drugs. Or modern fertilizers and the growth in food production. All these things came from independent science that encouraged investment and further research, but that resulted in a bunch of false starts and failed experiments along the way. Where’s the efficiency in that? And, honestly, what good have any of these things done for society as a whole? Not much!” he concluded, while checking his iWatch to monitor his heart rate after reading an incoming text message from his secretary.
“On the other hand,” Dr. Haskins reflected, “look at the state of climate science now. A lot of the funding comes from the International Panel on Climate Change from the United Nations and the authors there are deliberately selected without regard for their expertise, but instead on the basis of political wheeling and dealing. Same thing with the grants from the National Science Foundation and other government agencies. We START with the conclusion the government expects us to confirm and then we come up with a consensus to confirm it. Just look at what this does! It makes people think that the governments of the world can actually change the weather! Any population dumb enough to think a bunch of politicians can change the weather is dumb enough to believe anything, and so our work goes a long way to making government more powerful and effective. THAT is a great outcome!” he exclaimed. “Powerful governments give out grants, not weak ones,” Dr. Haskins concluded.
Selling the “new science” to the people isn’t always easy. “Not all people are stupid enough to accept grant-funded science,” Dr. Haskins said. “The trick is to make our ‘new science’ seem reliable enough to scare the bulk of the people into believing the government’s position, without exposing the methodology to scrutiny. That’s why we climate scientists carefully hide our emails, methods, source codes and data from the public.” He noted the need for close partnerships between science and government was necessary to make the “new science” work. “Frankly, we’d never get away with any of this if the government didn’t have our backs,” Dr. Haskins admitted. “That’s why we have theirs.”
Losing the ice fields will wreak global havoc. JIll Dunsmore, Interim Executive Senior Assistant Deputy Managing Director of the State of Alaska’s Region 3(B) Office of Climate Change Management, spoke to us while in Hawaii to participate in her office’s quarterly retreat. “The ice fields make Juneau what it is,” she said. “Every year, dozens of people go up there for some reason,” she continued, “I think they like to slide around on the ice or something. Or maybe smoke weed.”
Of course, recreation isn’t the major concern. “All that barren ice keeps development from being an issue,” Dunsmore pointed out. “If it weren’t for the ice, the whole place would be heavily forested like the rest of Alaska is, and just imagine what a disaster that would be!” she said. “You’d have animals up there and people camping. What a nightmare!” she concluded. “And Alaska isn’t in a position to handle more trees – the Forest Service would need a few hundred more people if we lose the ice fields.”
We decided to talk to an average citizen about the problem. After speaking with a few dozen people who didn’t seem to care one way or the other, we came across Derek Taninger, a 34 year-old boat captain who helps on seasonal whale-watching trips. “Bring me some global warming now!” he spouted. “My business is seasonal and the warmer it gets, the longer my season gets,” he said, selfishly. “And I hate those stupid helicopters carrying tourists up to the ice fields. If they’re willing to spend that kind of money, those tourists should be in my boat! I have a full-service bar on board.”
A passing young woman took exception to Taninger’s self-serving and superficial reasoning. “It’s not just about our ice fields” she explained. “It’s about the whole world! We’re all about to die! Didn’t you hear?! There’s a ‘tipping point’!” she screamed.