In this respect, the debate over human-caused global warming is similar to the "debate" over the evolutionary origins of species. Among the public, the most basic principles of biology remain controversial: about half of Americans say they do not believe humans share a common ancestor with other species. One may even find a few dissenting biologists, somewhere, willing to speak to legislators of the need to teach evolution in schools only as a scientific "controversy". Their climate-change counterparts can be found making vastly disproportionate contributions to Congressional hearings, or the Wall Street Journal.
A recent review of climate change evidence characterized the debate this way (Proceedings of the Royal Society, 2010):
"The history of science reveals a series of ‘controversies’. These often develop into a state where there is little debate within the relevant academic community (and what there is tends to be on peripheral issues), yet widespread popular debate remains. This usually occurs because the research has challenged the beliefs of a significant fraction of the population at large. The nature of the controversies, however, has changed. Where, for example, the advances made by Galileo and Darwin faced opposition because they challenged the established teachings of organized religion, climate scientists in the developed world have faced opposition from their more secular societies because they challenge beliefs that justify lifestyles and/or political allegiances (Malka et al. 2009; Nisbet 2009)."But as the article points out, there is a crucial difference between the climate change controversy, and the evolution controversy. While "humankind could often afford to wait for previous controversies to abate", in the case of climate change there is evidence that "time for effective action is extremely short". The American Physical Society, which represents thousands of physicists (including yours truly!) agrees:
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."
Freyguy
ReplyDeleteFar be it from me to argue science with a scientist (okay, actually I’ll argue anything with anyone). As a point of interest I note that this article uses getting published as a basis for determining the percentage of scientists in each camp who concur or are skeptical about man-made global warming. Those who are skeptical consistently claim that they have difficulty getting published. Make of that what you will.
As someone who fancies that he takes a global perspective let me suggest five policies I would implement (if I could) if man-made global warming isn’t a problem.
Stop subsidizing windmills
Stop subsidizing ethanol
Stop taxing ethanol imports
Stop subsidizing electric cars
Stop subsidizing nuclear power
Now let me suggest five policies I would implement (if I could) if man-made global warming is a problem.
Stop subsidizing windmills
Stop subsidizing nuclear power
Stop subsidizing electric cars
Stop subsidizing ethanol
Stop taxing ethanol imports
Now you may notice there is some similarity. (NOTE: I put them in a different order to jazz it up a bit.) That’s because I believe the solutions are worse than the problem and in fact make the problem worse. How can this be? Well, all of the above drive up costs. That makes it more likely that industries of all kinds will migrate to countries that are less environmentally demanding. The net effect will be an increase overall pollution. Collateral damage includes taking jobs out of the US and raising costs for consumers, making them (us) poorer.
Further, some solutions have a way of creating unintended consequences like killing tens of thousands of birds (windmills) or creating catastrophes while allowing rogue nations to pursue nuclear weapons under the guise of generating new sources of electricity (nuclear power). Some increase the strain on our electric power grid while creating a toxic disposal problem (electric car batteries) and some have little or no positive impact while pushing up food costs and encouraging the clearing of forests for domestic crops (ethanol). When it comes to taxing ethanol imports, that makes no sense at all in terms of the global warming (and energy independence) debate, but at least it drives home that logic and economics has little or nothing to do with these ‘solutions.’
It’s depressing to consider the tens of billions of dollars we are spending to make the environment worse and ourselves poorer (potentially trillions of dollars if the EPA actually does start regulating CO2 emissions). My guess is that future technology untapped or undreamed of will rescue us from this nonsense with or without government help. I only hope irreparable harm is not done in the interim.
Fred,
ReplyDeleteYou have called into question the criterion of scientific publishing, which suggests two possibilities: (1) you suspect there is not a broad consensus among scientists, or (2) you believe the scientific consensus is wrong.
Let me just point out right off the bat that if we were discussing any other subject -- astronomy, for example -- consulting the published scientific literature would be a natural criterion for distinguishing scientists from non-scientists, and consensus from controversy. Indeed, those who are skeptical of the 2nd law of thermodynamics also complain that they have difficulty getting published in scientific journals. These skeptics might have something in common with the unpublished, and thus uncounted, reputable global warming skeptics you have alluded to, who are not even invited by their like-minded colleagues to sign statements of dissent against anthropogenic global warming. The thing these skeptics might have in common is a disregard for the evidence.
Anyway, to address concern (1): Consult almost any major association of practicing scientists, they all have global warming statements. The American Physical Society, for example, does not bar anyone from membership based on their climate change views. Published position statements represent the broad consensus of its 47,000 members. I quoted from the APS statement on climate change in my original post. An open letter dissenting from the statement mustered sixty-one signatures -- that's 0.1% of the APS membership. This was much publicized and celebrated in the Wall Street Journal and conservative blogs, of course, with no attention paid to the original APS statement or the response to the letter, which represented the other "side" -- that is, the 99.9% side.
To address concern (2): I have absolutely no problem with departures from the scientific consensus. However, this should be an informed conclusion based on ice core data, or surface temperature measurements. One side of the public climate change debate, I regret to say, is consistently not doing this. One side consistently resorts to the tactic of misrepresenting both the evidence, and the status of expert opinion.
As for regulation .... there are plenty of realistic, practical proposals for reducing emissions. In the past, international treaties regulated ozone-depleting chemicals without causing "irreparable harm", etc. In fact, we managed to save our ozone layer. Of course you are right that we will have to make difficult decisions about nuclear power, etc. But crucially, before we can even have that debate, 51% of Americans must be brought up to speed on the reality of the situation.
There was, at one point in history, a very broad consensus of scientists that the earth was flat.
ReplyDeleteThe Old Man
...Therefore, today, we should be skeptical of scientists who claim the Earth is round?
ReplyDeleteI find the on- going debate about global warming (Anthropogenic Global Warming, hereafter abbreviated AGW) to be mildly humorous. I am particularly amused regarding two elements of the alarmists’ hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteFirst, how do they explain away the early 1970’s scare of global cooling put forth by Paul Ehrlich
(http://www.lifenews.com/2011/04/21/sterilizing-those-pesky-humans-earth-day-with-paul-ehrlich/)
and the Club of Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome) and based on sophisticated computer models which the average world citizen clearly couldn’t understand.
https://sites.google.com/site/logansron/cooling-climate
Second, why are all the effects of either scenario always bad?
When the global cooling hypothesis was waxing prolific, humankind was going to suffer in extremis: starvation, freezing to death, running out of food, fuel, housing, medicine, etc.
Now the AGW alarmists tell us that as the planet warms, once again all effects are bad: rising seas wiping out lowlands, decreasing rainfall, less farmland for food, more heat-related deaths, more diseases, epidemics, etc. These are also based on even more sophisticated computer models, which were erected after Al Gore invented the Internet, and which the average world citizen clearly couldn’t understand either.
Let’s say, for example, that the seas rise enough to wipe out the Jersey shore, Long Island, Florida’s Gold Coast and this ‘slow Tsunami’ engulfs the Potomac River and eradicates Congress. Why would this be bad? Indeed, if you’re an Obama wealth redistributionist, most of any shoreline economic loss would fall on the rich who have the financial wherewithal to afford living near the rising water. Wouldn’t this make you happy?
For these two conditions to be simultaneously true, then our climate must necessarily be at the exact optimum moment in all of its multi-billion year existence. Doesn’t anyone find this a little strange? It’s sort of like hitting a $100 million Lotto ten times in a row.
So, even if you believe in the AGW theory, why does it necessarily follow that if the earth’s average temperature rises two degrees, life is unsustainable? Consider the three points below:
• If the earth’s average temperature has already risen by two degrees over the AGW’s historical data base, then shouldn’t life already be unsustainable?
• There are tribes near the equator, where the average annual temperature might be 80 degrees Fahrenheit, living sustainably, and Eskimos in Alaska, where the average temperature might be 25 degrees Fahrenheit, living sustainably. Now here’s an actual mathematical fact: 55 degrees is greater than 2 degrees.
• Here in Connecticut, which gets more annual rainfall than the Amazon rain forest, and whose elected representatives’ (all Democrats) average IQ is 85 and falling, we manage to scrape out an existence with temperature extremes ranging from -10 degrees Fahrenheit to 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Didn’t both Freyguy and The Old Man live in Minnesoooota, whose temps ranged from -50 deg. F to +100 deg. F?
Isn’t this just perfect for the AGW advocates? Global Cooling causes Global Warming which causes Global Cooling, which causes Global Warming, ……., AHHHH! Lifetime employment!
Hi Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteFirst: there was no scientific consensus in the 1970's that we were headed for a rapid ice age. The American Meteorological Society has thoroughly debunked this myth: < http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pdf >
The scientific consensus around the 1970's was that the Earth's natural variability was heading for another ice age over the next 20,000 years, but human activities are probably influencing global climate in the short-term. Like today's consensus, yesterday's consensus was not based on computer models. It was based on data collected from ice cores, corals, surface measurements, etc. You cited Paul R. Ehrlich, who wrote in 1968: "At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump." < http://www.amazon.com/Population-Bomb-Paul-R-Ehrlich/dp/1568495870 > The National Science Board said in 1972:
"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading to the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now. However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path. ... When these human factors are added to such other natural factors as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar activity, and resonances within the hydro-atmosphere, their effect can only be estimated in terms of direction, not of amount."
A small minority of the research published during that time -- about 10% according to the American Meteorological Society -- suggested that the observed cooling in the 70's caused by aerosols was not temporary, and that it would ultimately overcome the warming caused by CO2. We now have 40 more years of data and the issue is resolved. Nevertheless, conservatives like Senator Inhofe find it very convenient to seize upon this long-gone minority. The facts are rather less convenient.
Second: of course you're right not all the effects are bad. Here you are simply knocking down your own strawman. Read the literature for yourself. The science does impartially examine both the positive and negative effects of climate change.
The concern is that we are conducting an experiment on the only planet we have, with unforeseeable and potentially irreversible consequences. Yes the Earth's temperature has risen a few degrees during its history; but not during the period human civilization flourished. Normally atmospheric CO2 cycles between 180 and 280 ppmv over 100,000-year epochs. But the burning of fossil fuels has raised it from 280 to 390 ppmv in a mere 100 years. Human infrastructure, crops, freshwater systems, etc. are likely to be very sensitive to such changes.
You mentioned "AHHHH! Lifetime employment!" Interestingly, if one side of this debate is arguing simply to preserve their own employment, it is the contrarian side. This is openly admitted, for example by a Republican congressman worrying about coal worker employment in Tennessee (and, of course, his own employment as their representative). These are real and legitimate concerns. It is worth considering would happen if we applied the logic of your post to such concerns: "Hey, Tennessee was settled long before its economy relied on coal; in fact, Earth was habitable before anyone burned coal. So why all the coal industry alarmism?"
Run and tell the King.....the sky is falling!
ReplyDelete