Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Pique n' your interest

Madder scientists

There’s very little we can say about our physical world with any absolute certainty.

Once upon a time the speed of light was considered an absolute measurement, but in recent years physicists have issued light pulses and microwaves that have travelled much faster than the once universally accepted speed limit.

It used to be that the tiniest building blocks in the universe were atoms, until science proved that atoms were really combinations of electrons, protons and neutrons. Now researchers are looking even deeper, discovering that the ‘trons themselves are made up of quarks that co-exist with mesons.

There are a few laws of motion, gravity and thermodynamics that are pretty solid, and the new math seems to work pretty well, but we still have a lot to learn about world and the complex systems that make our home planet what it is. Some things we may never completely understand.

The problem with this scenario is that people and western societies are wired backwards. Instead of doing things cautiously, living within the ecology until we know it’s safe to do something, we feel safe doing whatever we want to the planet until science can prove that we’re doing harm. Science, always constrained by funding and priorities, is left playing catch-up.

The matter is complicated by the fact that science, a constantly evolving field of knowledge and technologies, can never be perfect. If the speed of light and atoms are not absolutes, then what is?

Another problem for science is that results are often open to interpretation, with scientists taking different sides on major issues. Even if the large majority of scientists agree on a principle, a small minority of doubters – often on the payroll of the companies most affected by scientific discoveries – are given equal footing in debates and tend to get more support from governments. They call it being cautious. As long as one scientists says "no", a theory will never become universally accepted.

I’m referring to a lot of different issues, but the most important is the ongoing debate on global warming and climate change.

Climate scientists agree unanimously that greenhouse gas emissions have increased from about 280 parts per million 100 years ago to about 370 ppm today – higher than they have been in half a million years or more. They agree that increase in greenhouse gases could result in higher average temperatures by storing solar radiation that would ordinarily be reflected back into the atmosphere. They also agree that, on average, temperatures are half a degree Celsius warmer than a century ago. All of this is easily proven.

The scientists also agree that humans are at least partially responsible for increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere in the last century. Once again, it’s easily proven.

But that’s where the unanimity ends. Most credible, unbiased scientists believe that people are contributing to global warming, resulting in regional and global climate change, extreme weather events, droughts, and melting glaciers and polar caps.

Other scientists don’t see it as that big of a problem. A few scientists say climate change is natural and that the world will adjust. A handful of scientists still believe that the planet is actually entering another cooling phase.

If we listened to the majority of scientists rather than the handful of nay-sayers, it would be time to panic. If we wanted to, we could wean ourselves off of fossil fuel within a generation, while undertaking a massive effort to increase the number of trees and plants out there converting carbon dioxide to oxygen.

Wind and solar power are more efficient than ever, with new technologies on the way to make them comparable in cost per kilowatt to fossil fuel energy. Hybrid cars are on the market, reducing fuel consumption by up to 500 per cent for some SUV drivers. Fuel cell technology is just about ready to go, once a few hydrogen storage and manufacturing issues can be resolved.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Cities are reinvesting in public transportation. Rail is once again being looked at for the transportation of people and products. Home appliances are up to 10 times more efficient than they were 30 years ago, and energy efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs are widely available.

The solutions to global warming are out there, if we choose to use them. All that’s missing now is for the scientists of the world to step forward and loudly proclaim that the world as we know it will end in a hundred years unless we start to make changes right now.

This may seem drastic, and overly sensational – not very scientific – but people really do respond better to threats than theories. Scientists could learn a little from the politicians and preachers who aren’t above using colourful rhetoric and scare tactics to get their point across.

We need a new kind of scientist who’s bold, brash, and can match wits and insults with the right-wing demagogues out there that reduce every environmental issue into a leftist plot to loot dollars from hard-working families. The ideal candidate for this position will be a combination of David Suzuki, Martin Luther King Jr., and wrestling magnate Vince McMahon.

He or she should ditch the white lab coat for an Armani business suit, travel with a dangerous looking Wu Tang style posse, and date a prominent actress who is in the news a lot. Maybe J-Lo, if she and Affleck are truly finished.

If we continue to sit back and wait for the day that we can prove every scientific theory and concept beyond any reasonable doubt, it may be too late to use science to prevent serious damage from taking place. So far science has been too meek and too cautious in its assessments of risks, allowing companies and governments to write their own rules.

A strong voice in the scientific community is the only way to change things. Solid scientific proof isn’t necessary when you have the attention of the mob, and let’s face it – the cautious, measured, intellectual approach to science just isn’t working for us.

We don’t need more science. I’m already convinced the world is getting warmer, that weather is getting more unpredictable and dangerous, and that we are responsible. What we need are madder scientists.