How Certain Are We About Climate Disruption?
Over the last decade, George Will has written dozens of articles expressing and defending his skepticism on climate change. He comes to this conclusion from an array of different angles, each a subtle variation on the central theme: our civilization should be suspicious of its scientists who shout warnings that climate change is here and has just begun to wreak its horrific effects.
In this piece, Will refers to those of us who urge action to mitigate global warming as “Cassandrans,” i.e., those who can foretell the future but who are not taken seriously (see picture below). Here, he supports his “denialism” with two books that identify various points in time where the Earth’s climate changed, during which human society was clearly not the culprit. Of course, neither of them discusses the rise in carbon in Earth’s atmosphere that began with the Industrial Revolution. This glaring omission renders the whole argument asinine.
But even if that weren’t the case, who finds this sort of logic compelling? Yes, we all know that there is some level of scientific dissent—even on the part of a few (very few) extremely well-informed people who study this subject quite closely (though the vast majority of climate scientists say they are “more than 95% certain” that human activity is the cause of the warming of global temperatures).
OK, so how much certainty do we need here before prudence requires action? The metaphor I use most frequently is that we don’t have to be certain we’ll have a fire in our house before we think that prudence requires fire insurance. Most smokers don’t die of lung cancer, but one doesn’t need to be diagnosed before it becomes wise to kick the cigarette addiction.
Of course it’s possible that civilization will avert this catastrophe, even if it does absolutely nothing about it. We may wind up with advanced nuclear energy that carries a ridiculously small price tag. The cost-effectiveness of renewable energy may continue to improve. Perhaps we’ll come across some as-yet-unseen geological or biological process that functions as a huge carbon sink, or some galactic event that somehow changes everything. That said, the fact that any of these events is possible doesn’t imply that ignoring the strong probability of disaster is a responsible way to behave.
Since the time he graduated college in 1962 (Trinity, Hartford, CT, my alma mater, btw), George Will has been using his amazing intellect and communication skills to defend his libertarian ideals, i.e., that the U.S. government, while it should use its military to dominate the globe, should put a minimum of restrictions on Americans’ rights to enrich themselves. There are cases, however, and this is the granddaddy of them all, in which individual rights and the survival of our civilization have come squarely up against one another.
If Mr. Will wants to put his intellectual prowess on full display, he’ll make a jump here, like so many great minds have done over the last two decades. Changing one’s position on important scientific matters isn’t a sign of weakness; it’s a sign of maturity, fair-mindedness, and, most of all, respect for science itself. It’s the only thing that separates people like George Will from people like Mitch McConnell, i.e. well-paid prostitutes for baseless ideas.
At that point, he’ll go on to agree that humankind faces the most significant existential crisis since the beginning of the species. Then, he’ll use his capacity for great thought to help craft a solution that is fair and sound: technologically, economically, and geopolitically. All of humankind, and especially Mr. Will himself, will be the better for it.
A classmate of George’s refers to this piece as “asinine”. I’ll play good cop and simply say it displays ignorance that Will is smart enough to correct, if he cared about facts.
;]
But, it also shows Will’s lack of true conservatism. Conservatives don’t place unlimited downsides bets. George’s naive pandering of denial that >1.5 trillion tons of man-released CO2 in 150+ years has little effect on the future of the planet exposes Will’s descendants to his anti-conservative underbelly.
Wise environmentalists are conservatives. Will ain’t.
Fortunately, there are many more responsible adults addressing the problem, while Will just exploits his readership.
I suppose that’s exactly correct. I never exactly put it in that perspective. If this is the case now, it’s sad, because it certainly wasn’t always so.
Btw, we weren’t classmates; he graduated in ’62; I was class of ’77.
Another “btw”: Even though he was gone 11 years before I got there, he STILL had a reputation as an incredible intellect. According to legend, if a classmate wanted to discuss a certain subject with him, he’d say, “Sounds great. I’ll talk to you about that right after you’ve finished reading A, B, C, and D.”
Craig,
The legend you’re discussing doesn’t point to a high intellect. It points to a person who wants to brag about how much they read.
A high intellect can succinctly sum up the logic of an argument and deconstruct/reconstruct it within the bounds of a relatively short conversation. If you were dealing with a high intellect, you could expect a better answer than “go read a book about it”. In fact, “go read a book about it”, without a corresponding explanation or summary, is actually a sign that a person does NOT understand the concept well enough to discuss it. If he is willing to discuss it, THEN suggest other reading, that is a sign he is both intelligent and well read… but if I sought to discuss a topic and the other person says “go read this book”, I’d assume he was a buffoon pretending to be an expert and making a grasping appeal to authority rather than attempt to argue on his own behalf in an attempt to mask his own ignorance.
Certainly in the case of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), George WIll is an utter fool of the most vapid and ignorant sort.
Denialism at large is a grand effort to distract and misdirect minds that are… well easily distracted… from the core subject:
There is no doubt – on any level – that a buildup of GHG’s must result in a net warming of the planet. There really hasn’t been any doubt in that regard since 1894. (That’s not a typo). The only questions are how much and how fast, and whether there are feedback mechanisms to offset the buildup of GHG’s. Truly stupid humans like George Will take this knowledge base: spectrum absorption data for various GHG’s, blackbody radiation curves for temperatures from 250-315 K, ppm concentration data for the afformentioned GHG’s… etc… and completely ignore it – ignore even the existance of it… and instead focus on extreme minutiae – such as slight errors in the 20 and 10 year records from the median case of early generation models.
There is no such thing as a thoughtful or well informed denialist. At the core, you have to be an absolute fool.
You give far too much credit where no credit is due.
I suppose that’s true. What a disappointment….
Craig, Among the knowledge base that denialists must ignore and pretend ignorance of is the measured fact that top of the atmosphere (TOA) measurements of inbound radiation exceeds outbound radiation by ~0.6 W/m2, even though a full 1% of our total energy is received from nuclear reactions at the planet’s core – which means outbound would have to exceed inbound radiation by ~10-13 W/m2 in order for us not to be warming.
There is nothing worthy of respect or praise about denialists. They are either fools or they are con-men praying on the gullibility of fools in a nihilistic attempt to make a slight profit off of the exploitation of future generations.
I just got the email, so I’M LATE…
Just because the planet had more CO2 before is a totally lame excuse as a denier. This guy needs to search ocean anoxic event. He also need to understand what an infrared absorber is. He also need to learn chemistry. You can’t cheat the laws of physics just trying to peddle more fossil fuels!
However, there is an almost denialist solution – USE DIESEL FUEL! You might be saying “what???”. Use conventional heavy equipment to extract olivine, mix with biochar and bingo, like 20x the CO2 sequestered than emitted!
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4149850/olivine/articles/Springer-Encyclopedia.pdf
http://biochareconomy.blogspot.com/2013/02/biochar-plus-urine-results-in-highest-yield.html
When people ask me, I reply “Which version?” There are actually several. There is the ‘media narrative,’ which we can all easily dismiss. After all, it’s a media narrative, and nothing more. Media narratives are not capable of being anything more than that.
There is an academic field of study, yes, and the mediocrities love to feature scientists/researchers out in the field. The media will even quote them, very, very selectively. After all, Ph.D.’s or not, they have to dit into the ‘narrative” or they spoil continuity. The Ph.D’s participate in search of funding, which is a constant task for them.
Then there is the political rhetoric, which we could dismiss, except that the Party Hounds have a hand in allocating budget. In politics and government, it’s all about the money.
P.S.
This may be like a catch ad to “tell ’em what they want to hear” just to gain traction for his personal project of denial (for fossil fuels sales?). Usually when I hear something I like, I’ll support or “like” the person.
It’s obvious that most ALL people “should have more rights to enrich themselves”, so I agree with that, but suggesting Americans must rule the globe and that excess CO2 is of no concern should totally discredit him (especially in other countries).
It’s funny that he refers to people concerned about climate change as “cassandrans”, because after all, Cassandra was able to see the truth about the future when those around her were not able to, and they did not believe her. Doesn’t this imply that the people who are concerned about climate change are correct, and those who are in denial (such as George Will) are wrong?
BTW, I live near Hartford and I think Trinity College is a great school. Sorry to hear that G. W. is a Trinity grad, it doesn’t reflect well on the institution.
Scientists are the most skeptical people. For example. Geologists look at the data, come up with a hypothesis, that explains the data, and publish their results. Other geologists try to find data, evidence that disproves the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is disproven then a new hypothesis that fits the data is created. The problem is that since the 1980s there has been no better hypothesis and the new data from all scientific disciplines agrees with the hypothesis MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE. The data says we should be in a geologic cooling period but we keep warming…… We know with scientific certainty.
Here is Admiral Titley PHD, former climate skeptic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3dcc0mV-n4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skYizW7ktj8
In the article you reference, Will points out historical examples of the very kind of social and political upheaval that we can expect when the climate changes by even a few degrees. His profound confusion of cause and effect in his piece is really astounding for someone who is such a clear thinker on social and political (as opposed to scientific) issues. I respect Mr. Will and agree with him on most every subject except this one. Like it or not, he is very influential among elected officials and millions of his readers. One sure sign of a tipping point in the debate would be if Mr. Will could ever be convinced to change his mind on the subject.
The problem is the media companies are run by big wealthy special interests to increase their profits and not to disseminate the best scientific knowledge and unbiased news. That is why George Will is published with a huge megaphone.
Any equal time, equal media or truth in reporting or equal money for media does not exist.
Any equal time, equal media or fact checking, equal money in political campaigning does not exist.
This is the root core of the problems.
Has been for many decades.
“Everything has changed except our way of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe” Albert Einstein
I agree with this, Craig. Einstein sure was quotable, wasn’t he?
Also, let me point out that this “Craig” (commenter above) is not Craig Shields.
Here’s another post on George Will: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/01/11/climate-change-denier/. What a disappointment….
How smart Mr. Will and human beings are to me is the point. Climate control should not be the issue, just as we have progressed as humans in the basic chores of humans such as sewage control, trash pick up, crop rotation and recycling, these reflections of our collective human intelligence should enforce the theory that we are stewards of the Earth as opposed to that as current pillagers of Earth and that by using the resources of human intelligence for job one, protecting our home, Earth climate control as a problem becomes more solvable as a by product of us being Stewards of Earth.
YES
Cassandra was not believed, but she was always right. We should listen to the Cassandras in our midst. They might seem insane, but we should apply the precautionary principle when all the marbles are at stake. James Hansen does not seem crazy, for instance, and has a backlog of scientific studies to back him. The 97% of climate scientists who agree on the dangers confronting us are probably not all crazy, but the fossil-fuel industry backed spokespeople who fight them maybe are – willing to take short-term riches to help assure long-term disaster. Not giving a damn for ones grandchildren is crazy, a form of nihilism that’s incomprehensible.
Just a couple days ago, PBS had a program partly about how ice cores contained a history of climate change going back thousands of years. That information, together with information that I had picked up from other sources about ice cores, for me was practically conclusive.
The cost of living with the effects of climate change would most likely be so much greater than the cost of limiting climate change that even if the certainty of human-induced climate change were only 25%, it would make sense to reduce CO2 emissions drastically. The costs would likely include famine, mass migration, civil unrest, international conflict, and damaged civilization. However, those who claim that it would actually cause human extinction are greatly exaggerating.
Considering my age, I do not expect to be around to see the worst effects of climate change, but I’m not selfish enough to be indifferent to the effects.
The metaphor I like to use is a train barreling down the tracks and radio messages start coming in saying the bridge ahead is washed out. The engineer gets 20 messages saying the bridge is out and one message saying it probably isn’t really washed out. He’d have to be insane to keep going full-speed based on the single message denying the 20 others.
I like it.
Here’s one very rational way to examine this human climate disruption debate:
Let’s say that there are two possible conditions, and two possible responses…
Condition 1: The overwhelming majority of all our climate scientists are quite correct about the disruption that modern human activity is now causing in global temperatures, and are conservatively understating aspects of the actual threat.
Condition 2: The weight of science is totally misplaced, and the disruptive climate effects produced by modern human fossil-fueled activity are negligible and highly overestimated.
Response A: We do all that we can to reduce our output of all the contributing pollutants, and to increase our energy efficiency, and we do our best to scrub the atmosphere by considerable reforestation with carbon-retaining trees, etc.
Response B: We do nothing at all, and simply continue with accelerating our present inefficient and polluting behavior.
So four scenarios become possible, depending on the reality and our behavior…
Scenario 1A: The science is quite sound, and we act to lessen the impact considerably, by changing our behavior so that we pollute far less – this makes us, our children, and future generations far safer and much more comfortable.
Scenario 2A: The science is all wrong, and we lose some money and effort changing our behavior, but reduce pollutants and increase efficiency (things that would be good anyway).
Scenario 1B: The science is quite sound, but we fail to act and we condemn ourselves and our offspring to shattering worldwide turmoil and severe and enduring harm to the biosphere for many centuries, and conceivably for millennia.
Scenario 2B: The science is all wrong and we change nothing, stay inefficient, and keep on polluting our world.
This strikes me as very much like buying insurance – if you dodge a bullet and nothing happens, then you lose some money in exchange for peace of mind – but then if something does happen, and you’re not insured, then may God help you.
Question: Do you have insurance, or do you prefer to dodge bullets?