The Eloquence of Mucky Flip-Flops

Scientist measures X. Scientist models Y. Scientist offers a highly nuanced response to research paper published in a different peer-reviewed journal. Such is the discourse of science. But to outsiders, it often adds up to a giant, baffling... huh?

We know scientists are smart, that they do important work, and that they care—a lot. But sometimes it’s hard to tell that scientists live and breathe the same air as the rest of us, that they share our concerns, fears, and hopes. Perhaps this is because scientists are trained to be clinically objective. Perhaps it’s because the language of science is not readily understood, except by other scientists.

Carl Safina gets it. Macarthur Fellow, Pew Scholar, media gadfly (see here on the Colbert Report discussing the oil spill), author, teacher, co-founder and president of the Blue Ocean Institute—and yes, holder of a PhD in Ecology—Safina's mission is to move people with science, as evidenced by the tag-lines on both his self-titled blog (“Inspiration, Science, Nature. Hope.”) and his Blue Ocean Institute ("...works through science, art, and literature to inspire solutions and a deeper connection with nature").

Not surprisingly, Safina has written several posts on the situation in the Gulf of Mexico (see here, here, here, and here). Slightly unusual is that Safina’s posts are based on recent visits. And more unusual still is that he doesn’t just write about his observations, he also shows them. Safina's photographs of the oil spill, taken from a helicopter, a boat, and during walks on a local beach, are not scientific but they are evidence that it is possible to be both a scientist and an impassioned citizen (see his caption on the image of plastic garbage bags used for a beach clean-up). His photographs capture both the human and ecological impacts and prove, too, that he is living in our world-- one in which children swim amidst gooey tar balls, floating brown fingers of oil, and blackened, mucky flip-flops. In short, a world that is surprising, chaotic, and often uncontrollable.

To prove why science matters, scientists must respond to events like the Deepwater Horizon spill and many will—over weeks, months, and years to come. Kudos to those who are offering analysis in real-time and double kudos to scientists like Safina who are getting their feet dirty in the process.

Finding Sure Footing on Slippery Ground

Our conversations go something like this. Me: “It’s unprecedented! The worst oil-spill ever!” Him: “I hate when people use the word ‘unprecedented’. During World War II more tankers lost more oil in more spills over a larger area.” Me: “Those spills happened at different places on different days. Completely different scenario. And all the spills took place in shallow water. The deep water impacts are entirely unknown. It's a feeble comparison.” And so on.

My friend says he can not trust most environmental reporting, that it is tinged with hysteria and marred by bias. I am equally for dispassionate, rigorous, science-based environmental reporting, and by extension, environmental policies. Are there sources out there to bolster my case that the Deepwater spill is enormous and unprecedented?

In a post on The Oil Drum, Cutler J. Cleveland compares rates of release between naturally occurring oil “seeps”, the man-made spills, including Deepwater and others. The article is backed up with references to scientific literature (hooray!). But is the author a screaming environmentalist?

Cleveland is a professor of geography and the environment at Boston University with joint appointments in the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies and the Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer Range Future. He is also the author of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill entry in the Encyclopedia of Earth, an initiative that is backed by the National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE). NCSE’s board includes a mix of corporate, environmental, and current and former government officials. It's not full proof, but a promising indicator that my friend would entertain Cleveland's analysis.

Highlights are Cleveland's conclusion (yes, it’s bad), references, and a compelling line graph on the “Estimates on the quantity of oil released from the Deepwater Horizon accident, from natural oil seeps in the entire Gulf of Mexico, and from some notable historic U.S oil spills.”

Alas, Cleveland does not use the word “unprecedented”, but I stand, sadly, sadly hopeful.