The Climate Change “Debate”
Those interested in climate change, and how the U.S. has become the only major country whose people seriously entertain a debate on the legitimacy of the subject, will want to read this piece by Bill McKibben; the article provides a great deal of insight into the cause of the controversy.
On a personal note, at the 2012 graduation at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania, McKibben spoke to an adoring audience. In that group was Garrett Shields (pictured here), my youngest nephew, one of our most recent Bachelors of Science, who moves on to graduate school in public health at George Washington University. Congratulations, my fine young friend.
Writing papers has sure changed since I was a student; that was before the Internet even existed. We used foot notes referring to books and magazines. We found much of our material in the Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature, which probably no longer even exists. Now students apparently fill reports with links to web sites.
Denying science is not unusual; it goes back centuries. Galileo was put in prison because he asserted that the earth revolves around the sun instead of the sun’s revolving around the earth; even the ancient Greeks figured out that the earth revolves around the sun. Twenty years ago there was much less evidence to support evolution, but now that the evidence is so compelling, many people still deny it.
There are legitimate difference on exactly what the likely consequences are of global warming, but the evidence for warming has become so compelling that it is irrational to deny that it is likely to be very serious and could even seriously damage human civilization.
Here’s a very rational way to look at this debate:
Let’s say that there are two possible conditions and two possible responses, and therefore four possible scenarios…
Condition: The overwhelming majority of climate scientists are correct about the disruption human activity is causing in global temperatures, and are perhaps even conservatively understating the risks.
Condition: The weight of science is misplaced and the disruptive effects of human activity are overestimated and negligible.
Response A: We do all we can to reduce our output of contributing pollutants, increase efficiency, and do our very best to plant carbon sequestering trees and foliage, etc.
Response B: We do nothing and continue on our present path.
Scenario 1A: The science is sound and we act to lessen the impact considerably by changing our behavior – we, our children, and future generations are far safer.
Scenario 2A: The science is wrong and we lose some money and effort changing our behavior to reduce pollutants and increase efficiency.
Scenario 1B: The science is sound and we fail to avoid suffering catastrophic societal turmoil and severe and lasting harm to the biosphere for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years.
Scenario 2B: The science is wrong and we dodge a bullet by changing nothing.
This strikes me as very much like buying insurance – if nothing happens, you lose some money in exchange for peace of mind – if something does happen, and you’re not insured, god help you.
Do you have insurance?
Excellent analysis; however, there are numerous responses available, assuming man-induced, global climate change is real. For example, we could spend our resources reducing the amount of sunlight that strikes the earth, etc. I am generally disappointed at the inability of the climate experts to describe the climate models and uncertainties in ways that connect with the public. The fact that many on both the right and left address this as a political issue rather than a technical issue is disturbing and suggests a complete ineptness with their science. This is a dark period for science.
Well, I for one, as antsy as I am to get solutions in place, am glad that we’re taking our time with geo-enegineering. That’s one area in which we don’t want to make a mistake and find up with unintended consequences.