|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Faith-Based Reasoning |
Current rating: 0 |
by Scientific American Editors
(No verified email address) |
21 May 2001
|
|
Scientists are often lampooned as living in an ivory tower, but lately it seems that it is the scientists who are grounded in reality and the U.S. political establishment that is floating among the clouds. |
In March the Bush administration gave up a campaign promise to control emissions of carbon dioxide and withdrew U.S. support for the Kyoto Protocol. "We must be very careful not to take actions that could harm consumers," President George W. Bush wrote in a letter to four Republican senators. "This is especially true given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change."
Yet incomplete knowledge doesn't seem to be a concern when it comes to strategic missile defense. After another failed test last summer, candidate Bush issued a statement: "While last night's test is a disappointment, I remain confident that, given the right leadership, America can develop an effective missile defense system....The United States must press forward to develop and deploy a missile defense system." And press forward he has. The U.S. is reportedly on the verge of withdrawing unilaterally from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. In one case, the president invokes uncertainty; in the other, he ignores it. In both, he has come down against the scientific consensus.
Presidents, needless to say, must protect the country's economic interests and shield the nation from nuclear death. That is precisely why the administration's inconsistency is so worrisome. Ample research indicates that human activity is the main cause of global warming. Estimates of the economic damage by mid-century range in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year—uncertain, to be sure, but if you've been smoking in bed, it makes sense to take out some fire insurance. Kyoto is far from perfect; its emissions targets represent a diplomatic agreement rather than any careful weighing of cost and benefit. But it is a start.
Regarding strategic missile defense, researchers' best guess is that a reliable system is infeasible. The burden of proof is now on the proponents of missile defense. Until they can provide solid evidence that a system would work against plausible countermeasures, any discussion of committing to building one—let alone meeting a detailed timeline—is premature. It is one thing for a software company to hype a product and then fail to deliver; it is another when the failure concerns nuclear weapons, for which "vaporware" takes on a whole new, literal meaning.
Perhaps the most exasperating thing about missile defense is how the Bush administration has so quickly changed the terms of the debate. Journalists and world leaders hardly ever comment anymore on the fundamental unworkability of the system or the many ways it would fail to enhance security. Now the talk is of sharing the technology so that other countries, too, could "protect" themselves.
It would be nice not to have to shell out money for emissions controls. It would be nice to have a magic shield against all nuclear threats. It would be nice to be perfectly sure about everything, to get 365 vacation days a year and to spend some of that time on Mars. But we can't confuse wants with facts. As Richard Feynman said, "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." The dangers of ignoring its messages are greater than merely making politicians look foolish. |
See also:
http://www.sciam.com/2001/0601issue/0601rennie.html
|
