When is it an open exchange of ideas, and when is it buttheadedness?

Now that global climate change is discussed most everywhere, evidence isn't just for science publications anymore. The New York Times wrote recently about declines in the presence of floating Arctic ice, and included a summary of some related research findings: Scientists are attributing the ice loss both to "unusually sunny conditions in June and July, and long-term warming from heat-trapping greenhouse gases and sooty particles accumulating in the air."

Sez you! When figuring out what to do about such a difficult problem, I'd like to think that transparency and open information exchange are our friends. Apparently I'm not alone: Even some old-school energy producers (i.e., major oil companies) are facilitating discussions.  Chevron Texaco sponsors the Will You Join Us site, where people can learn about energy issues and voice their opinion: Included is a brief section on global climate change, which says that "One of the most critical environmental challenges facing the world today is reducing long-term growth in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs has contributed to an increase in GHGs — mainly carbon dioxide and methane — in the earth's atmosphere. Many think this increase is leading to climate change, with potentially adverse effects on people, economies, and the environment — from coastal flooding, to droughts, to changes in ecosystems and biodiversity. Many governments and businesses agree on the importance of addressing the risk of climate change. The challenge is to do so while still providing the energy required to meet the demands of growing populations and economies." [citations omitted here] Well, that sounds reasonable enough. WillYouJoinUs.com links to the corporate responsibility section of Chevron's own site, which states their Seven Principles for Addressing Climate Change [10-page pdf]. The principles are 1) global engagement, 2) energy security, 3) maximize conservation, 4) measured and flexible approach, 5) broad, equitable treatment, 6) enable technology, and 7) transparency. Chevron reports that "In 2006, our operations emitted 61.9 million metric tons of CO₂ equivalent, well under our goal of 68.5 million metric tons of CO₂ equivalent. For 2007, we are setting a preliminary goal of 63.5 million metric tons." No doubt some will be inclined to discount the company's efforts, given that it's a major producer of greenhouse gases. But what else should they be doing?

Don't be a butthead. So where do we cross the line between "agree to disagree" and plain old stubborn interference? The science writer Sharon Begley has Newsweek's August 13 cover story: Global Warming is a Hoax: The Truth About Denial. She accuses a minority of politicians and scientists of operating a "denial machine" to cast doubt on the link between fossil fuels and global warming. Begley accuses ExxonMobil in particular of funding a "greenwash" campaign. The article is more a recounting of the history of related lobbying efforts than a review of the science (though there's some of that, too). It will be unfortunate if a majority of policy-makers develop such a cynical view of the global warming naysayers that they stop questioning: Many questions and unknowns remain, and we shouldn't stop debating and looking for better evidence.

Show me the evidence! I'm still waiting for someone - whatever side they're on - to do a good job of presenting the research findings and describing the climate models they're using, so that a reasonably intelligent person could see for himself. As I've written before, most participants in this discussion are doing a lousy job, giving us piles of factoids and volumes of text telling us about the causes and consequences of global warming. Those pale in comparison to a photo of a stranded polar bear or a melting Antarctic ice shelf (shown here).

What are we going to do about it? Begley isn't any more optimistic than I am, closing her Newsweek article by saying "Look for the next round of debate to center on what Americans are willing to pay and do to stave off the worst of global warming. So far the answer seems to be, not much. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds less than half in favor of requiring high-mileage cars or energy-efficient appliances and buildings. No amount of white papers, reports and studies is likely to change that. If anything can, it will be the climate itself."