3.26.08
3
There’s obviously still a lot of debate about climate change, but it’s important to keep clear what the debate is about. When it comes to historical data, the evidence is clear that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere have risen dramatically since the industrial revolution (see http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf page 38). This is coupled with rising average temperatures and rising sea levels (same reference, page 31), plus other indicators of changing climate patterns. I think it is fairly obvious that rising carbon levels are having an effect.
But what we don’t know is what the long-term effect of rising greenhouse gas levels will really be–that’s all predictive science. We don’t have the technology yet to have confident climate models for the future. There are worry-some signs, but we still have a lot to learn. The debate is about what rising temperatures and rising sea levels are going to mean and where the stabilization point is at. And there’s less confidence that increased carbon levels are leading to changing weather patterns.
Maybe it’s not a big deal, and the planet will simply find a new equilibrium point. Maybe the changes occur so gradually that we just learn to adapt. But we don’t know. And that’s what drives my personal belief in fighting climate change. We have no control over the kind of forces we could be messing with. If we have the technology we should try to make as little impact as possible.
Plus, climate change is just one reason to get away from fossil fuels. It’s also about sustainability, like needing alternatives to natural gas since U.S. supplies are so limited. It’s about the national security threat of being dependent on unstable regions of the world for oil. And it’s about our economy and finding alternative energy sources that will be less prone to price spikes.
7 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Ben, I agree with you that it is important to keep clear what the debate is about, but you haven’t done that. Your argument is muddled, and contains many, not always complementary, points. This is typical of the arguments I hear being made by believers in man-made global warming. They say, “well, maybe the science isn’t perfect, but we should cut our dependence on fossil fuels anyway, for other reasons.” Which is what you have done.
So let’s be clear. Contrary to your previous post, the science about “global warming” is not settled. There is actually less agreement in the scientific community than in the political community and the brainless general media about the causes of climate change, but it’s being suppressed by political forces. I gave you a few examples of that, but there are many, many more from credible scientists.
The association between rising atmospheric gases and slightly increased average temperatures is a correlation, not proof of cause-and-effect. This is a huge distinction that most people don’t understand but which, again, is stressed by the eminent scientists I cited in my response to your last post on this subject.
In general, the human mind has trouble distinguishing between correlation and cause-and-effect. If you read the literature on this, a hunger to believe that we understand the world around us better than we actually do is deeply embedded in the human psyche. At the core of this desire, is the unspoken and unquestioned belief that all that occurs in the natural world must be a consequence of human action. So we see two occurrences, like increasing atmospheric gases and mildly increasing average temperatures, and we want desperately to associate them.
We formulate a hypothesis that they are linked, and seek evidence to support the hypothesis, while ignoring contrary evidence. It is also a part of the human psyche, if you read the literature, to find and accept evidence that supports the hypotheses with which we agree (on the basis of belief, by the way), and to ignore or dismiss evidence that refutes them. This is happening today in the global warming debate.
Debates like these generally last until the scientific information that either proves or disproves the hypothesis is overwhelming. A hypothesis of the magnitude of global warming usually is supported or refuted by a generation following the one that formulated the hypothesis, because each generation is blind to its own blindspots.
We currently are blinded by being inundated with so much “scientific” information that we falsely believe that we know more than we do–particularly about weather and climate, which are vastly more complex and variable than global warming alarmists would like us to believe. Our generation also has embraced computers so broadly and unquestioningly that we fail to adequately challenge the computer models that scientists build (witness the recent debacle over assessing the risks of mortgage-backed securities). Notice again, in the previous links I provided, how credible scientists expose the shortcomings of the computer forecasting models used by global warming alarmists.
There are numerous examples throughout history of the weakness of the human mind in understanding the world around us, the most obvious of which are “the earth is at the center of the universe,” “the earth is flat,” or my favorite, more primitive example following a volcanic eruption, “the Gods are angry with us, let’s sacrifice a virgin to the volcano.”
People who don’t begin an analysis of global warming with doubt cannot understand what is really going on or advocate worthwhile policies.
What this debate comes down to is “belief.” You actually use that word in your last paragraph. Some people believe that human activity is causing global warming, and they pounce on and communicate evidence that supports that belief. Others believe the opposite, though for the time being they have lost the podium in presenting evidence that supports their beliefs.
Unfortunately, belief is a poor basis for public policy, especially expensive public policy. If we’re going to base public policy on belief, than my choice would be to implement into law the teachings of Jesus, particularly “love the Lord thy God above all else,” and “love thy neighbor like thyself.” The reflectiveness that comes from believing in an omniscient God is a better focus for humans than the false belief that the natural world is driven by human will and that through science we can understand all.
Enough philosophy for today.
Rate this comment:
+2 | March 26, 2008 @ 9:23 am
J Murray,
Again, I must protest. Ben got it right.
The Wall Street Journal articles that you cited do not support your conclusions that global warming is in dispute or that the earth might not be warming. Those articles also did not support the conclusion that atmospheric carbon dioxide has not increased or that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has not caused the average global temperature to rise.
The scientific community HAS in fact come to agree that (1) humans have caused an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide AND (2) that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing the average worldwide temperature to rise.
The only dispute, and it’s a big one, and the articles you cited support the fact that this dispute exists — is over what the rise in temperature will mean. Whether Cleveland will have less average snow over time or hotter summers or more rain or more severe storms or gentler breezes or no effect at all — that’s all still in dispute.
I completely agree with your statements that we shouldn’t panic or rush to do “something” just because “something” must be done. The media loves a scandal, so maybe the alarmists are getting too much attention — I’d certainly agree to that.
But let’s move on to a more constructive discussion — the earth is warming because of an increase in carbon dioxide, should we do anything different as a result?
Your answer might be no, because we don’t know enough about the effects. Or your answer might be yes, but only x until we know more. You obviously seem to disagree with those who think we should completely change the way we live to stop global warming and stabilize or reverse the increase in carbon dioxide.
Personally, I’d like to reduce Cleveland’s air pollution so that I can see the striking towers downtown without smog. If that means finding a way to burn less carbon-based fuels and sending fewer US dollars to Saudi Arabia, I’m willing to do my part. I’m going to start by insulating my 100-year-old house, which also will bring me lower gas bills. A small step, but surely you’d approve. Global warming or not.
Rate this comment:
--1 | March 26, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
Foraker, I’m sorry, but you have mischaracterized my writing, glossed over the difference between causation and correlation, and stated certainty where there is only probability.
What is agreed to is that: 1. Carbon dioxide has risen in the last century, likely due to human activities; 2. Average temperature has risen in the last century; 3. The hypothesis that human activity has caused the increase in average temperature is supported by much (but by no means all) of the evidence.
This does not prove cause-and-effect, as your post suggests, only that there is insufficient data, at present, to disprove the hypothesis. If you don’t understand this distinction, then you don’t understand how science works.
Contrary to what you wrote above, I have not written that global warming is in dispute or that the Earth is not warming. That would be foolish in the face of the evidence. The argument I have made is about how to interpret the data available to us. Please re-read, carefully, what I wrote to make sure that you understand that your characterization of what I wrote is NOT what I actually wrote.
Temperatures have risen and fallen throughout geologic history, in the absence of Man, for a variety of reasons that we only partially understand. Don’t fool yourself into believing that our understanding is any greater than that.
In terms of what we should do, my answer would be “seek first to understand.” There has been a rush to judgement on this issue, driven by political forces, and that is suppressing thoughtful discussion and debate–as highlighted by the eminent scientists I linked to previously.
If you want to diminish our dependence on Middle Eastern oil because our own money is used to finance Islamic terrorism, then great, I’m all for it. But the more I read about alternative fuels, the more skeptical I become. Many of the alternative fuel technologies that are being trumpeted by the global warmings folks are just as polluting or moreso, at much higher cost, than oil and gas.
Rate this comment:
+0 | March 26, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
J Murray,
Obviously we are not communicating clearly. I did not intend to mischaracterize what you said, in fact I repeated my understanding of the point you were trying to make so that you could let me know if I was incorrect. Seems to be working; and I appreciate you politely pointing out where I went astray.
At least I think we agree that temperatures and carbon dioxide are both rising, that human activity has contributed to increased carbon dioxide, and that no one knows the effects of the temperature increase.
We seem to disagree on whether increased carbon dioxide is one of the causes of global warming. We might agree that there is a very strong correlation based on the available data.
I do not believe that human activity alone is the single or direct cause of global warming. I think we would agree on that point as well.
Although I didn’t say anything about alternative fuel technologies, nuclear power, despite some serious disadvantages, probably is the best option for future electricity generation on the scale at which we are consuming it. You’re right, all the alternatives have problems. Hopefully we’ll overcome some of them.
I’m not aware of any fuel source that has the energy density/cost of petroleum. If the demand continues to outpace supply, the cost is only going to increase and we’re either going to have to pony up, use a lot less, or find an alternative.
Reduced consumption of oil and its byproducts will do more than just keep money from Islamic terrorists. As with anything, if we need it too much and we don’t have enough in the US, someone outside the US has some control over us. We can either reduce our need for the drug or find a substitute, or both. Both approaches make sense if we want to reduce our dependence on outside sources, whether it’s oil, natural gas, or titanium.
Rate this comment:
+2 | March 26, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
Foraker, well discriminated. I agree with everything you wrote.
Rate this comment:
+1 | March 26, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
Agreement on belief is great and a major hurdle overcome with credit due to both of you for hashing it out. Now, how does that translate into action?
Rate this comment:
+0 | March 27, 2008 @ 7:56 am
lmcshane, action is the problematic area, isn’t it? There is a clear tendency, deeply embedded within the human psyche, to leap into action with partial or inaccurate data. Most people don’t recognize this tendency consciously and objectively, but just feel compelled, usually by emotion, to “do something, anything.”
I’m not one of those people. What I am doing in my private life is driving less, weatherproofing my house more, and doing my best to contribute to an informed dialogue on the subject.
People also have a tendency to see certainty where there is only probability, which is a dangerous basis for action. Therefore, in my public life, I’m certain that with the information at hand and the emotion being exhausted, it is unlikely that government will be able to do much that is productive for some time. As lame as this may sound to people who are biased towards action, I’m in favor of more study. I think the danger of taking expensive, wrong actions is greater than the risks of delaying action until we have more, better information.
I say this because I am a student of science, specifically evolutionary biology, and take the long view on these types of things. I also am objectively cognizant of the shortcomings in the human reasoning process that cause us to want to leap into action, and I’m actively opposed to doing that.
Rate this comment:
+2 | March 27, 2008 @ 8:31 am