Posted by Damozel & Cockney Robin | What, please, do people who argue that global warming (and specifically the role of greenhouse gases in accelerating or creating it) is "overhyped"? Can somebody explain this? They're not arguing that the science is wrong or untrue; they're saying that the people who are worrying about the potentially imminent end of life as we know it are being alarmist---"Chicken Littles", one blogger says disdainfully---rather than dealing with the issue in an adult, mature, looking-at-all-sides-of-the-science fashion. Or so we infer.
So here's what we want to know: If there is a 20% chance that the consequences could be 20% as bad as Al Gore thinks they will, doesn't this generation have a duty to take whatever action it can to try to prevent the consequences to the next?
| What a lot of people who claim the issue is "overhyped" really mean, as far as we can tell is, "I don't like Al Gore or the people who have brought the issue to my attention." In other words, these people regard global warming as a partisan political issue. But the issue isn't the property of Al Gore or of either political party or of any single nation. It belongs to the whole human race.
"I haven't seen...climate humility lately." A number of global warming skeptics recently have latched on to the Wall Street Journal
article by scientist John R. Christy (University of Alabama, Earth
Scientist, former missionary to Africa) like a leech onto a fresh blood supply. Christy---who participated in the IPCC and therefore shared Gore's win----doesn't go along with the majority of the
scientists and other IPCC panelists. They, according to him, are lacking in the praiseworthy humility which has rendered him unable to reach a conclusion about what the accumulated data mean. (He
also doesn't care for Al Gore"whose carbon footprint would stomp my
neighborhood".)
Writing on his thoughts concerning the Nobel prize he airily dismisses the science on which the (great) majority of his colleagues rely.
I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time. (My Nobel Moment)
It is because he is humble---with the humility of a true (therefore humble) scientist---that when faced with the complicated complexity of complex systems he can only scratch his head and marvel afresh at the humbling complexity of the complex world. Or so---again---we infer. He cannot conclude that the other members of the IPCC (majority of, that is) have sufficient evidence to support their conclusions.
There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why. As we build climate data sets from scratch and look into the guts of the climate system, however, we don't find the alarmist theory matching observations. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite data we analyze at the University of Alabama in Huntsville does show modest warming -- around 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century, if current warming trends of 0.25 degrees per decade continue.)
It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days.
Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"
I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer.
Others of us scratch our heads and try to understand the real causes behind what we see. We discount the possibility that everything is caused by human actions, because everything we've seen the climate do has happened before. Sea levels rise and fall continually. The Arctic ice cap has shrunk before. One millennium there are hippos swimming in the Thames, and a geological blink later there is an ice bridge linking Asia and North America.(My Nobel Moment; emphasis added)
Pffft. It's all just nature doing what nature does. Or probably it is. Or maybe possibly, but at our present level of ignorance, who really knows? Quite possibly the global warming threat is overhyped. So, you're probably wondering, what should we be doing? Nothing? Something? Maybe he is saying we don't need to do a thing, based on the data we have. Is he right? After all, we're all going to die anyway and the life of species, like the life of individual beings, is finite and dependent on many complex factors in a complex system Don't worry; be like the humble, head-scratching scientist. Chuck out those "STOP GLOBAL WARMING NOW" T-shirts and focus on the pressing problems you can do something about!
Suppose you are very serious about making a dent in carbon emissions and could replace about 10% of the world's energy sources with non-CO2-emitting nuclear power by 2020 -- roughly equivalent to halving U.S. emissions. Based on IPCC-like projections, the required 1,000 new nuclear power plants would slow the warming by about 0.2 ?176 degrees Fahrenheit per century. It's a dent.
But what is the economic and human price, and what is it worth given the scientific uncertainty?
My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal (sic) and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today....
Given the scientific uncertainty and our relative impotence regarding climate change, the moral imperative here seems clear to me. (My Nobel Moment)
What a good idea, assuming Dr Christy is right about both (1) the uncertainty of the global warming threat; and (2) our impotence. Forget the scientific consensus!
Of course, IF HE'S WRONG, life is very likely---at least if nothing is done---to become a lot nastier, a lot shorter and a lot more brutish for everyone. And it will be much worse for people in countries where there are insufficient resources to care for them.
What I would like to ask him is this: If he's wrong AND global warming IS caused by manmade causes AND we don't take steps now, how dire does he think (worst case scenario) the consequences will be and how quickly will they unfold? If we wait for science to achieve the certainty demanded by Dr Christy, will we have time later to realize our mistake and take steps to alleviate the harm? If we channel our resources and energies elsewhere now, and it becomes clear that global warming is due or party due to greenhouse gases etc., will we still be able to mitigate the damage? Is there, as Gore is fond of saying, a "tipping point"?
And speaking of tipping points, how much evidence would be necessary to tip the scales for Dr. Christy? How many years of observation of how many phenomena by how many scientists would do the job?
What, when all is said and done, is the right course for a nonscientist to pursue? On whose view of the global warming crisis should we base our actions: Dr John Christy or Al Gore and the IPCC?
An alternative conservative view. Writing without reference to any of these specific developments (Nobel Prize, Gore, IPCC, Christy) political conservative Dr. Steve Dutch of the University of Wisconsin's Department of Natural and Applied Sciences argues that accepting the consensus of scientists and the great weight of the current evidence doesn't make you a soppy liberal, but is simply an indication that you accept the traditional values of true conservatism.
In "The Science and PseudoScience of Global Warming" he says:
Critics of global warming frequently lash out at "scientific consensus," claiming, correctly, that science isn't a matter of voting and that consensus is not proof. Quite true, but consensus does show how most scientists read the evidence. And the consensus of a large number of scientists counts for more than the dissenting opinions of a few....
This is all very reminiscent of the creationist tactic of citing "eminent" scientists who "doubt evolution," while downplaying the fact that enormously more scientists support evolution. If we want a "balanced" discussion, balance implies weight. The number... of the people on either side count. .(Steve Dutch)
After setting out---and rebutting---the arguments of "global warming skeptics," he makes a point about the true meaning of "conservatism" that many of today's so-called "conservatives" have either forgotten or never learned:
I consider myself a conservative politically, and to me, "conservatism" implies three important things:
You face reality. You don't evade it by dredging up reasons not to believe evidence or labeling anything you don't want to believe in a "conspiracy."
"Conservatism" and "conserve" come from the same root. You don't unnecessarily squander limited resources you may need later. In fact you don't unnecessarily squander anything - period. You keep your debt limited to the minimum necessary. You pay your bills. If you get an unexpected windfall, you manage it carefully to stretch it out. You treat things in your care like they're your own.
So completely apart from global warming, fossil fuels are finite and will have a finite lifetime, and we have no practical substitute ready to replace them. Therefore we need to manage them carefully to maximize their lifetime. First we need to extend the lifetime of the resources themselves, and second, we need to buy time to develop alternatives and bring them on line. Doing so will reduce greenhouse gas emissions as a side result.....We would have neither an energy crisis nor a global warming problem if conservatives treated fossil fuels the way they claim money should be treated.You plan for the worst case. You don't necessarily assume the worst case, but you have a plan if it happens....But when it comes to climate change, [some conservatives] see nothing but rainbows and fuzzy bunny rabbits, or warm beaches and palm trees. .... Terrorist attacks and global Sharia law? Well, those are likely outcomes of retreating from Iraq. Sea level rise, more droughts and severe weather from global warming? That's just fear-mongering. (Steve Dutch)
We recommend Dr. Dutch to conservatives who just can't bring themselves to believe (because they don't like or trust Al Gore) that global warming isn't "over-hyped." For all we know, Dr. Dutch may very well not like Al Gore either. Maybe he does; maybe he doesn't---it doesn't matter. He knows that Al Gore isn't the issue; in a dispute of this sort, science trumps politics.
This is a case where it's crucial to distinguish the medium---and the messenger---from the message.
"Overhyped?" Part 2. (photo, Global Warming, by David Mason) We (the writers of this post) are each as lazy and greedy and self-serving as anyone else out there, but---because we believe the science---are taking on board---because common sense compels it---the idea that we need to do what little or much we can do to prepare against global warming.
RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTS
More on Gore and Media Memes: Did "A Gaggle of Journalists" Misreport the "9 Errors" Case?
A Response to the Critics Acid Raining on Gore's Parade (UPDATED)
Comments