Ideas&Issues
5D
S U N D A Y , M A R C H 23 , 2014
WWW.TUSCALOOSANEWS.COM
LARRY CLAYTON
THE PORT RAIL
Kennedy didn’t back down on world stage
Heated debate Why we still argue ‘settled science’ of climate change
T
his is about a president, a Democrat by the way. However, I suggest that he was not acting as a Democrat or a Republican, but as an American who drew a line in the sand and told the Russians in 1962, “If you cross it there will be consequences.” Early in January 1959, a revolutionary hero, Fidel Castro, rode into Havana triumphantly, bringing his revolution to a conclusion by capturing the capital of Cuba. The last dictator of Cuba, Fulgencio Batista, fled on a plane on New Year’s Eve, and Castro arrived a few days later to a tumultuous hero’s welcome. Even Americans watching Cuba closely welcomed Castro, who promised to restore democracy in Cuba and eradicate favoritism, corruption and dictatorship. Viva Fidel! Castro even had a triumphant visit to the U.S. in the spring of 1959, welcomed and feted by his American admirers, although there were already signals in the air that his regime would turn radical. By 1960 it was clear that Fidel had a very socialist agenda — expropriating large landed estates, nationalizing industries, etc. — and the U.S. broke relations with the Cubans. Fidel turned to the Soviet Union to support his increasingly communist agenda. He chased dissenters out of the country, drove them underground or simply lined them up against the walls and executed them by the hundreds. His brother, Raul Castro, still running Cuba today, commanded the execution squadrons with cruel efficiency. In April 1961, the CIA sponsored an invasion of Cuba manned by Cuban proxies to overthrow Castro. It was a disaster for the Americans, but a triumph for Fidel. The Yankees, thoroughly revealed as the true sponsors, were repulsed and Cuba now moved to true independence from the heavy hand of America. Fidel was not stupid. He needed support. The Americans could not be kept at bay for long, especially if they decided to intervene openly and militarily. President John F. Kennedy, on the other hand, was frustrated by his indecisive behavior that had undermined the Bay of Pigs invasion. He vowed not to let this happen again. A World War II Navy veteran who had served in combat in the Pacifi c as a torpedo boat commander, he knew that if power were to be projected to promote national interests, then it had to be real, not just words or threats. He got his chance to do so sooner than perhaps he anticipated. By the spring and summer of SEE CLAYTON | 7D
HUNTSVILLE he reason there is so much content ion rega rding “global warming” is relatively simple to understand — in climate change science, we basically cannot prove anything about how the climate will change as a result of adding extra greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. So, we are left to argue about unprovable claims. That’s really what it boils down to. Now, we can measure and prove that greenhouse gases are increasing. And, in the laboratory, we can measure and prove that adding greenhouse gases to a jar of air will lead to further warming. We don’t argue about these. But when it comes to how the actual climate system might respond to extra greenhouse gases, we’re out of luck in terms of “proof” because the climate’s complexities are innumerable and poorly understood. Climate science is a murky science. When dealing with temperature variations and trends that might be influenced by humans, we do not have an instrument that tells us how much change is due to humans and how much to Mother Nature. Measuring the temperature change over long time periods is difficult enough, but we do not have a thermometer that says why these changes occur; i.e., we cannot ap-
T
JOHN R. CHRISTY peal to direct evidence for the cause of change. So, we argue. In other words, the real climate system is so massively complex, we do not have the explicit ability, as with so many other sciences, to test global-size theories in a laboratory. Without this ability, we tend to travel all sorts of other avenues to confi rm what are essentially our unprovable views about climate. These avenues, indirect as they might be, tend to comfort our souls because we crave certainty over ambiguity. Now, it is a fundamental characteristic of the scientifi c method, and therefore of the confidence we have in our theories, that when we finally understand a system, we are able to predict its behavior. One avenue of inquiry used to understand a system that scientists and engineers in many fields already employ is computer simulation. If a system’s important details can be represented properly in a computer model, then predictions can be accurate and therefore valuable. I dare say my local supermarket can predict with great skill what I am going to buy thanks to the information-gathering system now utilized and my boring eating habits. Unfortunately, even the
most advanced set of climate model simulations does not deliver much in the way of certainty. For example, I analyzed the tropical atmospheric temperature change in 102 of the latest climate model simulations covering the past 35 years. The temperature of this region is a key target-variable because it is tied directly to the response to extra greenhouse gases in models. If greenhouse gases are warming the Earth, this is the fi rst place to look. In a rather disconcerting result, I found all 102 model runs overshot the actual temperature change on average by a factor of three. Not only does this tell us we don’t have a good grasp on the way climate varies, but the fact all simulations overcooked the atmosphere means there is probably a warm bias built into the basic theory — the same theory that we’ve been told is “settled science.” I don’t know about you, but to me, being off by a factor of three doesn’t qualify as “settled.” As important as models can be for problems like this, it is clear we have a long way to go. And it is troubling to realize that current policy is being based on these computer models, none of which has been validated by a formalized, independent red team analysis. (Congress, EPA: Are you listening?) SEE CHRISTY | 7D
They shall not take up venomous serpents
I
AT LARGE
Reagan got mileage out of McDonald’s
A
ECOVIEWS
have a plan to reduce the number of venomous snakebites in this country. My plan will prevent people from handling pit vipers or any other venomous snakes as part of a religious ceremony. The plan does not involve my becoming a preacher who teaches congregations the art of handling a rattlesnake without being bitten. Nor does it include promoting legislation that makes it illegal for a religious group to encourage anyone to engage in what could be a fatal act. Instead, I offer my interpretation of what the Bible actually says about handling serpents. In February people across the country were shocked when a Kentucky man died after he was bitten by a timber rattlesnake that he was handling during a church service.
TOMMY STEVENSON
He was not the fi rst person to be killed because he picked up a pit viper as part of a religious ceremony, a ritual that continues to be performed by certain groups in the AppaWHIT lachians. I am not GIBBONS familiar with all the nuances of religious beliefs that promote snake handling and certainly do not want to intrude on the sensitivities of people who believe they have immunity from a venomous snakebite. However, using my interpretation of what the Bible says should make such ceremonies less hazardous. Serpents are mentioned many
places in the Bible, typically not in very fl attering terms. But I am talking only about snake handling. The King James Version is a translation that has been accepted by vast numbers of people for five centuries. Mark 16:18 notes, “They shall take up serpents.” Luke 10:19 proclaims, “Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions.” Neither of these passages refers to “venomous” serpents. Just serpents. ( We can discuss scorpions at another time). True, the apostle Paul was bitten by a “viper” on Melita (aka Malta) and was unharmed (Acts 28:3-5). But no one is commanded to pick up or otherwise engage with venomous snakes. Anyone who feels compelled to “take up serpents” can do so by picking up a harmless corn snake or a
kingsnake, both of which clearly meet the criterion of being a serpent. The list of completely inoffensive ser pents in the United States is long, with nonvenomous varieties far outnumbering venomous serpents. Every state in the southern United States has at least a couple of dozen different kinds of serpents that are completely harmless. I can’t speak for how other people choose to interpret the Bible, but the K J V passages cited above in no way suggest that one is required or even encouraged to take up venomous serpents. In the United States, half of the bites by venomous species are dry bites, that is, little or no venom is injected. Maybe Paul’s bite was in the non-envenomation category. SEE E COVIEWS | 7D
mong mainstream conservatives, there is no higher compliment than to be known as a Reagan Republican. That is despite a decidedly mixed record that includes record deficit spending, the Iran-Contra affair, in which the Reagan administration traded weapons to Iran for the release of hostages, and his decision to cut and run in Beirut when a car bomb killed 241 Marines in their barracks. President Ronald Reagan’s enduring popularity has as much to do with perception as reality, but he remains the most charismatic president since Fra nk lin Roosevelt. I got an up-close and personal look at that charisma when he campaigned for re-election in Tuscaloosa in 1984. He made an exuberantly received speech at the then-called Memorial Coliseum, and when he left, I hitched a ride back to the airport in an SUV full of local Republicans dressed in their fi nest. Suddenly Reagan, in his own SUV, turned into the McDonald’s parking lot in Northport. I talked my driver into pulling over too and scrambled out and into the McDonald’s, where I was surprised to fi nd myself the only member of the media present. Reagan proceeded to the counter, where he ordered a Big Mac, fries and a coke from the startled young woman behind the counter. He then turned and headed for the seating area – without paying. An aide — I believe it was Michael Deaver — quickly stopped him, whispered something in his ear and slipped a $20 into his pocket. That faux pas remedied, Reagan put the change in the pocket of his suit coat and wandered back to fi nd a seat. It was the middle of the afternoon, and there were only a couple of good old boys, seemingly oblivious to the commotion up front, quietly enjoying their lunch at a table in the dining area. Reagan sauntered with his tray to the table and looming over the two guys said casually, “Mind if I join you?” The guys, mouths agape, said “Sure,” and the Gipper slipped into one of the two empty seats at the table next to one of them. Unfortunately I was not able to get close enough to eavesdrop on the conversation, but soon enough Reagan got up, put his tray up and headed back to his vehicle, which sped away toward the airport. I interviewed the two guys, who told me that Reagan had just made small talk, asking them about their families and work and commenting on his Big Mac, which he pronounced “delicious.” Now stranded at the McDonald’s, I used a pay phone (this was well before cell phones became ubiquitous) to call the office for a ride back to the newspaper, where I rushed in to begin writing my scoop. It didn’t stay that way for long, however, as the buzz in the office about the president of the United States stopping for a Big Mac in Northport attracted the attention of the Associated Press guy who was borrowing a desk and computer in our newsroom to fi le his story. As a matter of professional courtesy, I had to share my notes with the reporter for the AP. After all, we greatly depend on them for state, national and international news. I also did some checking with the McDonald’s manager and discovered that Reagan’s visit was not as spont a neous as it seemed. He said when he arrived at work SEE AT L ARGE | 7D