JLVernonPhD presents "American SciCo"

The year was 1971.  A young postdoc at NASA named Steve Schneider reads a ludicrous Op-Ed written by Eugene Guccione, the editor of “Engineering and Mining Journal.”  He is so moved by the anti-science rhetoric in the Op-Ed, he decides to write a response to address the obvious scientific fallacies perpetuated by Guccione.  Scheider’s response is printed in the New York Times on Sept. 16 1971.

Did you get that? 1971! 

His boss Robert Jastrow was so agitated by Schneider’s response that he fired him from his post at NASA.  Subsequently, Schneider was reinstated on the basis that young scientists were encouraged by management to do public outreach (a lesson that should not be wasted on young scientists today).  

The debate occurring at the time, to which Schneider was responding, is not unlike the debate we are having over climate change today, with one major difference.  At the time, there was an actual scientific controversy.  The science at the time supported at least two predominate positions. The first was whether particulate matter produced by industry and transportation would raise the opacity of the atmosphere so high that sunlight would be unable to penetrate it.  If so, the Earth could be plunged into a dangerous cooling trend that would threaten our way of life.  On the other hand, scientists were simultaneously making the argument that carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere could have a warming effect that would similarly threaten our way of life. Despite having a dog in this fight (his science supported the cooling hypothesis), Schneider properly points out both sides in his response:

“…serious scientific studies have indicated that CO2 and dust pollution can affect climate, albeit in opposite directions. We do not yet know the magnitude of these influences well enough to be certain which, if either, of these effects will predominate.”

Schneider goes on to make an important recommendation.

“What we do need is an accelerated program of scientific research along with improved international cooperation.”

The prophetic nature of these quotes is quite revealing.  It’s interesting that he did not argue for a policy regulating carbon dioxide.  Rather, he argued that we needed more research to inform our response.  Scientists were just beginning to recognize the impact that humans were having on the climate.  The atmosphere had begun to measurably accumulate pollutants and there was likely to be some impact on our climate.  Thus, we needed more research. 

Schneider went on to cite existing science that attempted to quantify the impact and make a connection to human activities.  (Remember this letter is 40 years old.)

“…a recent study has indicated that if the world population increase and energy demands continue at present rates, man’s “potential to pollute” will increase six- to eightfold in the next fifty years.”

Clearly, there was an opportunity to respond 40 years ago.  And, yet, just as today, there were naysayers such as Eugene Guccione who wrote the whole thing off to silly “environmentalists.” 

Guccione begins his Op-Ed by stating,

“We are winning the war against pollution.”

(sounds a little like, “Tobacco does not cause cancer.” Am I right?)

He goes on to cherry pick data that fits his argument and that conveniently contradicts the scientific point of view.  Convenient because he happens to be closely bound to the mining industry.

By clouding the waters, Guccione along with many other industry-supported folks successfully postponed serious evaluation of the problem and potentially contributed to the problems we’re seeing today.

His tactics are no different from those used by other industries, like tobacco companies, oil companies and chemical companies designed to resist government action.  The difference today is that we have the data to show that the debate over climate change that occurred 40 years ago has been settled.  Schneider’s argument that particulate matter in the atmosphere could lead to a cooling trend lost the debate.  Instead, we have 40 years of scientific evidence that proves that there is a correlation between increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to human activities and increasing temperatures as measured in numerous ways.

The question remains, “When will the American public stop listening to charlatans like Guccione who represent special interests like mining organizations and energy corporations and instead objectively evaluate the data for themselves?” 

Is that too much to ask?  Just look at the data.