Global Warming: Who Should We Believe?
If it weren't so sad, Mother Nature would be laughing up Her sleeve at our willful stupidity. Nature is what it is and all the spin in the world won't change the facts. The laws of nature are cold, impersonal things. If we keep producing too much CO2, global warming will continue whether we agree with it or not. Given the fact that none of us has a crystal ball, I'd rather listen to the scientists screaming at us to pay attention, and a very intelligent man (Al Gore) who has studied the problem in much greater depth than most people, than stake the future on the opinions of those with a vested interest in closing their eyes and ears to any evidence that doesn't support maintaining the status quo.
There remain missing pieces of evidence that researchers will need to fill in, but, as Ralph J. Cicerone, Ph.D., President of the National Academy of Sciences, noted in his 2005 testimony before Congress, "Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth’s current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels." The "plausible" standard should be good enough to take some reasonable measures, given the possible moral and physical consequences if we choose to ignore this. Sure, we're not responsible for all the CO2 in the atmosphere, and we can't yet say reliably beyond the previous 400 years what the natural fluctuations might have been, but why not reduce whatever negative effects we can control while we have the chance?
Some say that nonscientists should stay out of the debate because they are not entitled to make pronouncements about global warming if they don't have a scientific background. This is the ad hominem "embarrassment" method of shutting up one's opponents by implying they're unqualified to have an informed opinion. Unfortunately, nonscientists can't afford not to have an opinion on this particular issue; we can't stay out of this debate even if we want to because it is our decisions that will affect the CO2 levels and that will elect the people who will either make a difference -- or not. Our decisions, individually and collectively, will determine the future health of our planet.
For those of us who can't spend our lives studying the problem, then, the question becomes: who should we believe? Follow the money, folks; there are people at the top of the fossil fuel industry who are well on their way to a nice, fat retirement and don't want their fantasies disturbed. There are people who believe what they want to believe and don't give a damn about what happens to the world after they die because it doesn't serve their purposes. As one of my favorite people, Maury Roberts, used to say, "Never underestimate the power of self-interest." Who would you rather believe? Who is most likely to be telling the truth? My money's on the scientific consensus that we've got something to worry about.
This is a nonpartisan issue. Nature doesn't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican, conservative or liberal. Do your homework in a clear-eyed, honest frame of mind, and then respond as best you can. Read or study whatever you have time for, and always consider the source and the interests that will be served by any conclusions that are drawn. As Dr. Cicerone said in his 2005 testimony, "The task of mitigating and preparing for the impacts of climate change will require worldwide collaborative inputs from a wide range of experts, including natural scientists, engineers, social scientists, medical scientists, those in government at all levels, business leaders and economists." And citizens like you and me. We'll all respond in different ways, of course, but we all need to respond.
There remain missing pieces of evidence that researchers will need to fill in, but, as Ralph J. Cicerone, Ph.D., President of the National Academy of Sciences, noted in his 2005 testimony before Congress, "Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth’s current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels." The "plausible" standard should be good enough to take some reasonable measures, given the possible moral and physical consequences if we choose to ignore this. Sure, we're not responsible for all the CO2 in the atmosphere, and we can't yet say reliably beyond the previous 400 years what the natural fluctuations might have been, but why not reduce whatever negative effects we can control while we have the chance?
Some say that nonscientists should stay out of the debate because they are not entitled to make pronouncements about global warming if they don't have a scientific background. This is the ad hominem "embarrassment" method of shutting up one's opponents by implying they're unqualified to have an informed opinion. Unfortunately, nonscientists can't afford not to have an opinion on this particular issue; we can't stay out of this debate even if we want to because it is our decisions that will affect the CO2 levels and that will elect the people who will either make a difference -- or not. Our decisions, individually and collectively, will determine the future health of our planet.
For those of us who can't spend our lives studying the problem, then, the question becomes: who should we believe? Follow the money, folks; there are people at the top of the fossil fuel industry who are well on their way to a nice, fat retirement and don't want their fantasies disturbed. There are people who believe what they want to believe and don't give a damn about what happens to the world after they die because it doesn't serve their purposes. As one of my favorite people, Maury Roberts, used to say, "Never underestimate the power of self-interest." Who would you rather believe? Who is most likely to be telling the truth? My money's on the scientific consensus that we've got something to worry about.
This is a nonpartisan issue. Nature doesn't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican, conservative or liberal. Do your homework in a clear-eyed, honest frame of mind, and then respond as best you can. Read or study whatever you have time for, and always consider the source and the interests that will be served by any conclusions that are drawn. As Dr. Cicerone said in his 2005 testimony, "The task of mitigating and preparing for the impacts of climate change will require worldwide collaborative inputs from a wide range of experts, including natural scientists, engineers, social scientists, medical scientists, those in government at all levels, business leaders and economists." And citizens like you and me. We'll all respond in different ways, of course, but we all need to respond.
posted by Christine M. Hanson | 12:10 PM
5 Comments:
Not all who question global warming due to emission of greenhouse gases are making money in the gas industry. Some are honest and intelligent. Check out http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/2006/June%2017.htm for a conflicting view.
Thanks for sharing the URL. I checked it out. I certainly would not claim that everyone who questions the existence of global warming is in the gas industry or is dishonest. I don't presume to know the unstated motivations, affiliations, or income sources of the posters to the Web page cited (or that of the scientists they quoted). I do believe that there are concerned and honest people who simply don't find it credible that releasing CO2 into the atmosphere at the current pace is leading inexorably to a climate crisis with global repercussions, and who think the status quo poses little or no threat. Call me a skeptic of that view. One can focus on seemingly contradictory bits and pieces if one prefers, but the big-picture trajectory, as captured by Gregg Easterbrook's NY Times commentary, which appears near the end of the Web page cited, seems more convincing to me:
"Earth's surface, atmosphere and seas are warming; ocean currents are slowing; ice shelves are melting faster than projected; spring is coming ever sooner; rainfall patterns are changing; North American migratory birds are ranging father north; the ability of the earth to self-regulate to resist warming appears to be waning. While natural variation may play roles in climatic trends, overwhelming evidence points to the accumulation of greenhouse gases, mainly from the burning of fossil fuels, as the key." Sounds plausible to me. Reasonable minds may differ, and I'm not advocating everyone living in tents, but why not do what we reasonably can, on the outside chance that Gregg Easterbrook, Al Gore, and the president of the National Academy of Sciences are on the right track? Think I'll go tweak that thermostat.
Meanwhile, honest and intelligent readers may also want to check out the Pew Center on Global Climate Change: "The objective of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change is to educate key policy makers and the public about the causes and potential consequences of climate change and to assist the domestic and international communities in developing practical and effective solutions to this important environmental challenge. The 'Basics of Global Warming' section of our site provides introductory information on global warming, including fundamental facts and data on global warming, analysis of the science behind global warming, frequently asked questions about global warming, and a global warming glossary." And if you're still reading my comment, there's 50 pounds of fresh squid waiting for you behind Door Number Two!
Here's the URL for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change:
http://www.pewclimate.org/about/
I (believe it or not) am also a skeptic of the view that we are not harming the atmosphere with all this CO2. My only complaint was that you presented all of those with the other viewpoint as being in bed with the vested interests. We should always be very careful about thinking that those who disagree with us on any topic are evil or stupid or have some agenda. We are conducting an uncontrolled experiment with our only home and it is very dangerous. We should be doing all we can to develop ways to get around without all this CO2 release. While I think we need to do this because we don't know what we are doing to the atmosphere, I am not totally convinced that CO2 is the cause of global warming. It is getting warmer, but we don't know the CO2 is causing it. It could be. And it could be making it worse and could push us over the edge into an unstable temperature environment that would be a real crisis. It pays to be prudent and do something about our part in it (without ruining our economy).
We are in agreement with my main point that it pays to be prudent, in the absence of 100 percent conclusive evidence, for which we likely cannot afford to wait. So at the risk of beating a dead horse, I feel compelled to point out that a closer reading of my original post will reveal that I did not make the subpoint you allege. To state that "there are people" who are in bed with vested interests does not imply universality of that motivation among those who don't believe global warming is happening. I'm sure my disgust with people who would risk the planet's future for their personal economic gain showed in my blog, but I wouldn't presume to call them evil (that's up to God), and they're not all stupid either. My main purpose in posting the blog was to exhort fair-minded, intelligent people to take whatever action they can because we can't afford to wait until all the evidence is in, and to urge global-warming "skeptics," fair-minded and intelligent or otherwise, to consider the source of the bulk of the "confusion" about the evidence on global warming and the inaccurate perception that there are equal and opposing viewpoints on this issue. In fact, the vast majority of climatologists have already concluded, based on an educated examination of the available evidence, that we are in grave peril.
To state that there are corporate interests behind much of what passes for the "other side" of this debate, and that are deliberately fomenting doubt (and bankrolling others to do their bidding) is unfortunately a sad reality, not something I made up to discredit any who might disagree with me. I wish it were just my unfair opinion, but there is a long, documented history of such activities. Google "global warming" and "confusion" together some time.
Meanwhile, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ross Gelbspan, discussing the 15-year misinformation campaign by the oil and coal industries, noted that "[t]he point of this campaign was not necessarily to persuade the public that global warming isn't happening. It was to persuade the public that there is this state of confusion." This is a well-known corporate strategy employed in this and other contexts when the science has gone against a company's products and, hence, against its economic interests. Other documented examples include tobacco and Vioxx. I find such behavior repugnant.
ABC News noted that a 1998 memo by the American Petroleum Institute said, "Victory will be achieved when...average citizens recognize uncertainties in climate science."
To redefine global warming as theory, not fact, Mr. Gelbspan noted, the industry has been funding research by "friendly" scientists. ABC News reported today that, until a few months ago, a former oil industry lobbyist, Phil Cooney, chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, was one of the president's top environmental advisers. He edited scientific reports to make global warming seem less threatening. See "Was Confusion Over Global Warming a Con Job?"
Post a Comment
<< Home