Climate change is a unique issue for discussion because, as a practical matter, it's not inherently political; it's an academic issue to be determined by scientists. And I am NOT a scientist. So, this blog will not prove or disprove the existence of climate change (for our purposes, defined as man-made impact on the environment, sufficient to cause a change in the temperature, which in turn could cause catastrophes). This post will reference what we know and don't know to the extent that it is relevant to impact political policy. Government intervention in climate change will be represented by ME and government non-intervention will be represented by Mark. Pro-climate change won the imaginary game of rock, paper, scissors. Begin.
ME:
1. Data Data Data. Climatologists and environmental scientists have reviewed the relevant data and collectively overwhelmingly come to the same conclusion. Mankind creates an inordinate amount of carbon dioxide, from our factories through our technological innovations for daily consumption. The carbon dioxide has created a greenhouse effect, essentially trapping heat within our atmosphere, which could lead to rising temperatures and cause glaciers to melt, leading to falling temperatures (essentially erratic temperatures) along with a variety of cataclysms, and affect many eco-systems endangering many species, and in the long run, endangering humans as well. The time-line of events is not universally agreed upon by climatologists; some of whom claim that we are already experiencing affects of climate change and some of whom claim that we will experience such affects in the imminent (or not too distant) future. More importantly, there is widespread disagreement about what can be done about the climate change with some advocating massive worldwide efforts and legislation to reduce carbon emissions and others direly proclaiming that any efforts are already too late to stem the tide of climate change.
2. Science Agrees. It's not just the climatologists; the vast majority of scientists on the planet agree with the climatologists. Many of these scientists (including physicists, chemists, biologists, engineers, and geologists and including the vast majority of prominent and respected and highly-regarded scientists) have reviewed the relevant data and come to the same conclusion about the existence of climate change. The objections to climate change theory tend to be on the fringe of the scientific community and/or disagreements based upon degree. Moreover the chorus of climate change deniers tend to be non-scientists claiming one or two of such fringe scientists as champions and/or declaring varying degrees of fraud, which is often interspersed with conspiratorial rantings (like anti-vaccers). The rare outlier scientist may be seeking acclaim and notoriety by expressing skepticism. The non-scientists should not be at the forefront of any scientific discussions. The reason the vast majority of scientists tend to frustratedly attack climate change skeptics is because they firmly believe there is sufficient data to draw this conclusion and there comes a point when skepticism to a widely accepted theory (which in science is more than just a hypothesis) is tantamount to doubting an obvious fact -watching someone doubt a truth repeatedly is very frustrating and ultimately dangerous. Just as importantly, I don't have the chops to debunk the scientific community. So, we should rely on the best data, conclusions, and analyses available provided by our scientists.
3. Duh. There is a common sense argument as well. For the last 200 years, ever since the Industrial Revolution, we have exponentially increased the amount of toxins and pollutants we dumped into our environment. It would not be surprising to learn that our factories are releasing environmental poisons (as they often are) or that our homes and cars are emitting dangerous levels of a gas or a pollutant. Collectively, around the world, there has been a tremendous increase in such toxins, so it would make sense that at some point, we humans would impact the earth. Moreover, practically, there does seem to be a trend of extreme weather patterns. Two of the last 20 years have broken records for the hottest years on record. Glaciers appear to be melting, leading to the death of polar bears and other arctic life. There have been several surprisingly devastating storms and hurricanes, which may reflect some of the early indirect impacts of climate change. So, it makes sense that our vastly increased technology and activity affected the earth and it makes sense that the increased vacillations in our weather patterns are connected to those affects.
4. Benefits of Changing Energy Policy. Because this is not a scientific argument, but rather a political one, there are quite often political benefits and motivations to act on the science of climate change. There are national security benefits, including the lack of dependence on foreign oil. Creating a new clean energy source or harnessing an efficient existing clean energy source could be the wave of future energy utilization, which would keep America at the forefront of energy and technology and atop the world's economy and military might for the foreseeable future. Merely divesting in OPEC oil should diminish their global power and impact and allow us to concern ourselves with our own problems and/or focus on the human rights violations and other concerns in such nations. In the long run, this could also impact our war on terrorism. And creating a new industry could revitalize aspects of our economy and create increased job growth. Not to mention, there is a profound benefit in ending a man-made catastrophe, which could theoretically kill billions of people (and may have already begun killing people and creating environmental disasters that may have contributed to the initiations of wars and greater poverty), destroying countless animal species, and decimating delicate eco-systems. There is clear interest throughout the world to act and prevent further climate change. If we as a nation do not lead this effort, others will not follow, particularly because we not only have influence and capability, but also because we are one of the larger offenders. And whether we consider the remote possibility that the vast majority of scientists are wrong, shouldn't we act on their conclusions... and wouldn't it be irresponsible to act otherwise?
Mark:
1. Glorified Weathermen. Climatologists and environmental scientists are not the cream of the scientific crop. (If you don't believe there are different caliber of facts or pseudo-sciences, try googling whether an egg is good for you and read the opposing viewpoints.) Weathermen are notoriously wrong; so are environmental scientists. It is not entirely clear to what extent they were wrong or to what extent they were exaggerating the dangers of the diminishing ozone layer (or the prevalence of acid rain). But, America cut down some use of CFCs and the problem disappeared instantly? It's more likely the problem was inflated. Just as importantly, there have been several credible claims of data fraud to confirm climate change conclusions. There is always an incentive to sensationalize data or conclusions for access to grants, but the wave of recent environmental panic has led to greater funds and greater support for preordained conclusions. Further, the analysis of the data is all over the map, from how long before the impacts take affect (including whether we are currently impacted by climate change) to whether it is too late to alter the course of global warmi... Oh, they call it climate change now because the prior terminology of "global warming" was a misnomer or inaccurate? And according to the scientists advising Al Gore in the 1990's, I think the world was supposed to have ended by now.
2. The Weird Union of Scientists. Yes, the vast majority of scientists agree on the data, the flawed data, collected by the environmental scientists that flunked out of physics (just kidding). In the absence of replicable tests, we are drawing conclusions from a series of compound data sets and correlations. Yet: (1) correlation is not causation, (2) even if temperatures are related to the increased carbon, the higher temperatures may explain the greater carbon retention (meaning causation in the opposite direction), and (3) even the collective scientific community is frequently inaccurate (see gravity: Newton corrected Aristotle- Einstein corrected Newton; and quantum theory and/or string theory may be correcting Einstein), and, (4) as mentioned, climate change is not being critically scrutinized by these foremost scientists, and (5) there are many other possibilities that I have not considered. The occasional skeptical scientist that objects or questions the data or conclusions is laughed, ridiculed, and shouted out of the room in a chorus of hate fermented in rigid orthodoxy. (This uniformity has existed for decades but recently cemented further.) A few of the scientists who were drowned out were rather prominent... before they dared question the "truth" or dared doubt their fellow scientists. This treatment is more akin to how the religious faithful treat heretics rather than how scientists treat fellow truth-seekers. Moreover, climate change has impacted the cultural debate about the role of science in politics and society, so objecting to climate change has almost become code (or a symbol) for being anti-science or anti-expert, rather than merely questioning flawed data and hasty conclusions. So, scientists expressing doubt as to climate change are perceived as scabs or traitors to the cause of science, rather than skeptics of a specific conclusion. Thus, scientists may fear opposing the absolute truth of climate change for fear that the majority will not seriously consider their unrelated theories. So, joining the gang of other scientists, who probably did their jobs in investigating this issue, is easier, safer, and less obstructive to their future.
3. As Unpredictable as the Weather. The weather is volatile; it changes from one minute to the next, but also daily, weekly, seasonally, yearly, and even by era. There are regularly upward and downward trends in the weather. Well recorded temperatures are limited to the last couple of centuries, and the details regarding the weather throughout the world are even more sparse until the last century. This calls into question the sample size (and collection methodology) of the relevant data. For example, the earth has undergone ice ages, which include wide varieties of temperatures, having nothing to do with human involvement. The most recent mini-ice age ended around 150 years ago, which roughly coincides with our Industrial Revolution and our emergence from that mini ice age would explain why the Earth may be trending hotter. If we factor in that we have 100 years of good weather data and we are coming out of an Ice Age (which takes time), it's not surprising that we would have a few years that are the hottest on record. Assuming climate change is the cause may be the product of a few interesting perceptional phenomenon including recency bias, Apocalypse Syndrome, and human narcissism. Regardless of what point we are in history, we tend to think that the moment we are currently in is special (this is the coldest winter ever) and has led to many people fantasizing that the end of the world is nigh at just about every point in history, whether that was because of legitimate reasons or less legitimate ones (e.g.s the arrival(s) of Messiah or the Anti-Christ, the advent of nuclear weapons, Y2K, and global warming). But more to the point, the Earth is enormous, and to think that our limited activity has such a drastic impact on the weather at large is radical. Cows emit tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide; our impact is not altogether too much greater than nature's natural impact. And to assume our impact is affecting the earth is prematurely egocentric.
4. Risks of Changing Climate Policy. But again, this question is not actually about the science of climate change, it's about the practical political applications thereof. So, if there is no climate change, then we should not pretend there is and act out of character and irrationally to prevent such a fictional danger. If there is climate change and our impact has already been so dire that there is nothing we can do to minimize its affects, then we should not act irrationally (and against our other interests) to prevent an inevitable event. Similarly, if other polluting developing nations are going to continue using (and theoretically abusing) technology, then our decision to change our behavior (along with the impact of European nations) may have very limited to nil impact on the environment. For practical purposes, if our national behavior has very limited impact on the environment (either way), then we should factor in the health of our economy via jobs, travel, etc. And to the extent that actions curtailing emissions hurt our job sector (meaning thousands of people with families could lose their jobs) or our growth or prosperity, we should limit such emissions standards and not sacrifice our economy for a futile or imaginary effort or limited benefit.
Mark Ellis
I can't stress this enough; I am not a scientist. A politician's job is to gather the relevant information to reach a conclusion. They should consult with the relevant experts to decipher the data. And regardless of our non-scientific skepticism, we should follow the best available theory, whether that is as true as the bulk of the scientists claim or merely somewhat true. So, again, regardless of whether the scientists are correct (or if they replace their current theory in five years with some other apocalyptic vision), we would be stupid to ignore them. Of course, in considering our actions, we should factor other aspects of our national future including the impact of jobs in our country, but we must not sacrifice the planet for our current economic health. Ideally, we can find a happy medium that minimizes the loss of jobs, builds a new American technology and industry, and has some of the other benefits of not depending on foreign oil. As for whether I personally believe in climate change, yes... but lightly.
I believe in lightly, but barely. You rule.
ReplyDelete