Philip Ranlet: Icebergs, Scientists, and Global Warming
[Philip Ranlet teaches history at Hunter College. Among his books are Enemies of the Bay Colony, 2nd ed. (2006) and Richard B. Morris and American History in the Twentieth Century (2004).]
As the temperature drops outside, it is time once again to return to that exciting topic, global warming. Scientists who prophesy the emergence of global warming can not be doubted by a mere historian. Research in Science relating to icebergs shows that scientists are always right. (For those readers who are not historians, we do research by reading books and prestigious journals such as Science.)
In 1999 icebergs disappeared, and Science published an article in which some scientists declared that global warming was the culprit. And, of course, they were correct.
However, icebergs, being contrary, had vastly increased by 2002. Science printed another piece that year in which some scientists explained that global warming was responsible for the bergs’ resurgence. As scientists, they had to be right. Isn’t global warming a marvelous theory? No icebergs? Global warming! Many icebergs? Global warming! No matter what happens, global warming explains it.
Why are some scientists so fixated on global warming? Scientists in higher education really want to spend their time puttering around in their expensive labs fiddling with their very expensive equipment. Unfortunately for their preference, colleges usually insist that scientists actually teach students. Disappointed scientists are not only required to instruct eager graduate students who want to save the environment. No, administrators actually want scientists to teach introduction to science classes, populated by tattooed freshmen—some of whom have enough metallic attachments to make even the bionic woman jealous.
It should not surprise anyone that scientists want grants to save themselves from teaching. When they toss their data into computers, they have a quandary. If the results show no crisis, grants will not appear and the metallic freshmen beckon. If their computers predict a crisis such as global warming, grants will flood in (along with the increase in ocean levels), and scientists can happily escape to their labs.
How can anyone dispute what scientists say? Some centuries ago, scientists believed that the sun revolved around the Earth. Who could argue with that? More recently, scientists believed that a person’s health was determined by the balance of bodily liquids such as blood; bleeding would help a sick patient. A non-scientist would have to have a lot of gall to question that. For decades, scientists correctly insisted that Pluto was a planet. Now scientists assert that Pluto is not a planet. And they are right.
Global warming, I suspect, is starting to lose its ability to secure grants. Most likely,
scientists will discover some other crisis. Another ice age is a possibility, but something more dramatic is probable. My guess is that a scientist will announce that there is a good chance that a giant asteroid will destroy us all. Scientists, armed with their grants, will once again retreat to their labs to save the planet. That scenario sounds like the plot of a movie sure to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
As the temperature drops outside, it is time once again to return to that exciting topic, global warming. Scientists who prophesy the emergence of global warming can not be doubted by a mere historian. Research in Science relating to icebergs shows that scientists are always right. (For those readers who are not historians, we do research by reading books and prestigious journals such as Science.)
In 1999 icebergs disappeared, and Science published an article in which some scientists declared that global warming was the culprit. And, of course, they were correct.
However, icebergs, being contrary, had vastly increased by 2002. Science printed another piece that year in which some scientists explained that global warming was responsible for the bergs’ resurgence. As scientists, they had to be right. Isn’t global warming a marvelous theory? No icebergs? Global warming! Many icebergs? Global warming! No matter what happens, global warming explains it.
Why are some scientists so fixated on global warming? Scientists in higher education really want to spend their time puttering around in their expensive labs fiddling with their very expensive equipment. Unfortunately for their preference, colleges usually insist that scientists actually teach students. Disappointed scientists are not only required to instruct eager graduate students who want to save the environment. No, administrators actually want scientists to teach introduction to science classes, populated by tattooed freshmen—some of whom have enough metallic attachments to make even the bionic woman jealous.
It should not surprise anyone that scientists want grants to save themselves from teaching. When they toss their data into computers, they have a quandary. If the results show no crisis, grants will not appear and the metallic freshmen beckon. If their computers predict a crisis such as global warming, grants will flood in (along with the increase in ocean levels), and scientists can happily escape to their labs.
How can anyone dispute what scientists say? Some centuries ago, scientists believed that the sun revolved around the Earth. Who could argue with that? More recently, scientists believed that a person’s health was determined by the balance of bodily liquids such as blood; bleeding would help a sick patient. A non-scientist would have to have a lot of gall to question that. For decades, scientists correctly insisted that Pluto was a planet. Now scientists assert that Pluto is not a planet. And they are right.
Global warming, I suspect, is starting to lose its ability to secure grants. Most likely,
scientists will discover some other crisis. Another ice age is a possibility, but something more dramatic is probable. My guess is that a scientist will announce that there is a good chance that a giant asteroid will destroy us all. Scientists, armed with their grants, will once again retreat to their labs to save the planet. That scenario sounds like the plot of a movie sure to win the Nobel Peace Prize.