Environment

Thanks, Natasha.  I'd certainly be a less happy blogger if I gave up covering the science!

I, too, have had a bit of trouble using scientific facts in my conversations with friends, especially doubters.  I have been using an argument that I think Tom Friedman used in his book, Hot, Flat and Crowded:  "What if you are wrong?"  with the following explanation. . .

If the environmentalists are wrong, but we pursue clean, renewable energy and all the other good stewardship efforts, the worst that can happen is we will have new technologies (with improvements in schools and access to education), new businesses (with investment and tax incentives), new jobs (for many who are recently out of work), better health consciousness (reducing medical costs). . . the list is endless.  

BUT, if the doubters and dismissers are wrong, and we do nothing . . . . the results would be disastrous. 

It was a statement that moved me in a very simple, but powerful way. 

I am one of the "contrarians" who recently moved on, though not in search of an 'open mind', but for a more prosaic 'open discussion'.  Emily let me know that questioning the essential premise of Anthropogenic Global Warming is not acceptable here - and that remains a problem for me.

I am back, to weight in on the 'global warming science crisis' topic current on several blogs (probably many).  I initially involved myself with Emily's blog, because she clearly has a better grasp of the tool she is using when making scientific arguments than is commonly seen on 'warming-blogs'.

Most do use/invoke science, but not very well.

I don't think the 'failure' of the audience to respond to science-presentations in this field is surprising at all.  Environmental activists have been 'beating people up' with science for many years, until now much of the public simply hear them 'crying wolf'.

However, I think it would be a loss for science if environmental activists tossed off science as an effective way to change the minds of the public, dissenters, skeptics, etc (some appear to be contemplating exactly that).  I especially think it would be unfortunate if the better-skilled science-oriented spokespeople such as Emily dropped it  - an option she makes plain is not attractive to her.  (Not that peoples' minds will be changed by continuing to recite pro-activist science-citations to them, but that the quality of the blogging will suffer.)

I expect that actually the buckets of ice water down the back may well increase, for a phalanx of reasons.  It looks like 'exciting times' ahead for all involved in climate-policy endeavors.

Ted

I am still appalled that someone on this blog can "doubt" that Global Climate Change (GCC) is real, that it is happening now, and that humans are largely responsible. To "doubt" this, one would have to be ignorant of the basic scientific process. ALL scientists will never agree on anything, because they are HUMAN. Science is not a "human", it is a body of knowledge based on reproducible experimentation, principles of logic, and preponderance of evidence. Science does not ALWAYS "get it right" the first time, but it is far, far, far better than political ideology, religious faith, or personal feeling. The preponderance of evidence is in - GCC is a scientific fact. I am still willing to argue this with doubters, but our time is running out. We have to act now, or the question becomes one of regret. We ignore the fact of GCC at our grave peril.
As for "beating people up with science", what the hell does that mean?! I teach college - the vast majority of my students' lack of a basic understanding of what science is and how it works is appalling, and this lack of understanding has actually DECREASED over the past 20 years. How can you "beat people up" with science when they don't even understand it to begin with?
Like this article says, the biggest problem is willfully lying about scientific fact for monetary gain (as seen by the big oil companies), and willful ignorance by people whose ideology will not bend to accommodate an inconvenient truth.

I meant INCREASED in the above post, sorry!

To my mind, debating the reality of global warming is akin to debating whether the US landed men on the moon.  Editorially, I have other fish to fry. 


But if a blog post happens to address "belief" in global warming directly, like this one, then that discussion is related to the topic.  So I'll be more restrained as I wield my god-like powers to remove comments. 

Craig Nazor,

It's easy to see that we have "Global Climate Change", but that title doesn't even tell us which way things are changing, much less 'why'.  A better title is "Anthropogenic Global Warming", AGW, which tells us that things are warming, and it's due to human activity - specifically, a greenhouse effect brought on by carbon dioxide released through combustion of geologic hydrocarbon fuels.

We were all recently reminded (by Pew) that actually, much of the entire population doubts the AGW scenario.  Even knowing that is the case (the doubt-trend has been visible now for at least a couple years), I was a tad surprised to see some of the issues the public ranked ahead of AGW ... unpaired socks and aquarium-algae were not in the priority-lineup, but had they been I now hesitate to count them out.  ;-)

I like science, Craig.  Selling science to me is like pushing candy off on the kids.  I have a meaningful sci-tech educational background, and I have applied it in the field across major regions of the planet.  Some of that has been highly germane to the topical focus of this blog.

Getting "beat up with science" is having science used to achieve goals that are political, but could not be legally implemented as direct Legislative measures.  The spotted owl shutdown of the Pacific Northwest federal timberlands is a good example.  Activists were pleased to have damaged the timber-industry, by asserting owl-recovery conditions ... which few are surprised have not improved the status of the species (but logging was halted, which some see as the real benefit, and goal).  That's one well-known case of beating people up with science.

I think that "this blog" is an excellent place to host the diversity of public views, assessments and beliefs on the subject of climate variation, and (public) policy that might pertain to it.  It seems to me disadvantageous to be "appalled" or otherwise discomfited to find even one isolated nay-sayer in attendance, when actually it appears that a preponderance of the national population has both doubts and a low estimation of the AGW theory.

I applaud the couching of positions in scientific terms, and I am encouraged to see the acceptance of scientific citation to back assertions made in warming-blogs.  However, I believe it is essential - in AGW's own best interests - no matter our point of view or credentials - to bear in mind that we are not a Scientocracy.  It is the beliefs, opinions, fears & hopes - the "values & principles" - of average people that count most.  Without citizen support, the outlook for any movement is poor.  That spokespeople for climate-activism express considerable disdain and even hostility toward the masses of citizenry is not a good sign.

Many people have disagreements in life.  Those who prosper tend to be those who learn to communicate with those with whom they have sharp differences.  It's easy to consult with those who share one's outlook, but the profit is in learning to have civil relations with those whom we wish weren't part of the scene ... but are.

Claudia Collier,

For quite some time-period, I half-heartedly supported the general environmentalist climate-activism (it was not always warming-oriented) because I knew that real-world former climate-excursions (natural) have been very serious, that they have had heavy impacts people & society.  If the environmental position could help citizens and leaders focus better on the importance of planning for adverse climate changes, then I was willing to overlook 'issues' in their methodology.

This rationale for supporting climate-activists therefore bears a good resemblance to the logical argument that you make; that to act to forestall a severe possibility when the justification may be inaccurate, but the outcome will be salutory nonetheless, is acceptable.

It's not a perfect argument ... but it can be a good one.  It can also be a bad one.  I'm going to give an example:  I in no way mean to impune your (or other's) use of the logic-argument by equating it with the example.  However, I think it should be clearly held in mind that 'it can turn out badly', and there is an example we are all familiar with.

President George W. Bush used this same argument, repeatedly, to justify our attack upon Iraq.  "Well ... well, even if Hussein isn't bosom-buddies with Osama bin Laden and conspiring to launch another terrorist attack on the USA - it's still a good thing to get rid of Hussein!"  And, "Well ... well, even if Iraq doesn't have Weapons of Mass Destruction, etc, etc."

Again, I am in no way aiming to tar AGW folks using this argument with the GWB-brush ... but all should be aware this argument does lend itself readily to abuse, and there is a history (long) of it.

In the present case, shoring up the agenda to reduce and curtail carbon dioxide release, we see the argument that, "... Besides, there is no downside if we're wrong".

Well, there could be.  Unilaterally taking U.S. carbon-industries off-line could reduced the stature of the nation to the extent it could create a 'power vacuum', as in '(political) nature abhors a vacuum'.

By rapidly weaking the United States, a large instability could be injected into world affairs (as contenders scrabble for the power we vacate).  The exact outcome would then become very hard to predict, but it could certainly be bad, including for the very environmental values & goals we had hoped to protect.

"Geoengineering" used to mean dumping a million tons of sulfur or something into the entire planet's skies and everyone rightly said that's crazy.  One wacky idea ruined it for the rest of us.

What if "geoengineering" meant wiring a small solar cell to a spark plug and placing it over a known Arctic methane leak?  The sparks would burn off 100 metric tons of methane.  Then, 10,000 of these little devices would safely burn off a megaton of global warming gases, inhibiting global warming, with a low environmental impact.

What if "geoengineering" meant restoring the entire Arctic Ocean ice pack for 20 years with a $10 million budget, reflecting sunlight back into space?  I think I can do this!

I suspect that climate change may in fact be irreversible, except "irreversible" has everything to do with political sloth.  Everything. 

Paul Klinkman -

The simplicity of your suggestion to ignite venting methane sounds like the right kind of stuff.

I'd be more inclined to support suggestions that have limited cause & effect chain.  Throwing a match into a debris-choked forest, hoping it burns off the unwanted material and leaves everything else as-is ... hmm.  ;-)

From what I understand the "Carbon Tax" paid in the USA will be given to China and others to build factories and power plants.  Since they are NOT the USA they do not have to build to EPA standards.  (The disasters in the food and drugs from China show how decent quality standards are ignored)

Can anyone explain how moving "venture capital" in the form of "Carbon Tax" to a foreign country helps lower greehouse gases and helps the USA get out of a resession? Can anyone explain how taxing those who can ill afford it, families scrapping by on subsistance farming, is such a great idea?

Between the Carbon Tax and NAIS (animal ID) most farms will shut down.  Unfortunately Ag products are one of the few things that the USA still exports.  China already holds over 30% of our debt.  Why are Americans giving China MORE money FREE on top of the interest on the loans???  How does this help the environment, provide safe healthy food and decent jobs

All I see is the World Trade Organization, Corporations and the Media using "the sky is falling" to get MORE money from the average person.  When I compare the 50's and 60's to now all I see is a loss of freedom, a loss of jobs, a loss of industry and a very big very expensive government that we can no longer afford.

If you are really concerned about making an impact on global warming Consider this.

Methane is 20 times more effective as an IR absorber than CO2. The world's natural wetlands produce a greater ‘greenhouse gas’ contribution than human CO2. How come nothing is said about methane swamp gas?? Thanks to the beaver introduced by the government the creek running through my land ten years ago is now a 100 ac swamp. The creek empties up stream from the city water intake and thanks to those beaver Giardia is now a problem in the city. We won't mention the increase in disease carrying mosquitoes

No one reports the Giardia problem, no one says a word about the contribution to greenhouse gases from the INCREASE in USA swampland. If Global Warming due to greenhouse gas is the true problem there should be a major rush to fill in those swamps. This is never mentioned in the media, by Gore or anyone else

NASA predicts that the Arctic ice - the Earth's best and first defense against global warming - will be gone by summer 2012.  We have to make some drastic changes before its too late.  Energy efficiency and new technologies will not be implemented fast enough to prevent passing this "point of no return".

The UN reports that the meat industry is responsible for more greenhouse gases than all forms of transportation combined.  We have an obvious solution to stop climate change now, and its free - its vegetarianism. 

If we all became vegetarian tomorrow, the effect on greenhouse gas emissions would be the same as if all cars, trucks, planes, trains, and boats were eliminated from the Earth.  Even cutting meat from one of every 5 meals (a 20% reduction) is the same as switching from a regular sedan to a hybrid Prius. 

We have to focus on educating people on what they can do NOW.  People do want to make an impact - they just don't know how.  They can't afford solar panels, or buying a hybrid, but they can become vegetarian. Right now, most people don't even know they can make a difference.  They can't make a choice if they don't know that there is a choice to be made!

Nice article, Emily. Good points, though I will probably beat my head against that "educating the public" one until the day I die. Still, I think that some deniers should be separated out. There are those that have good arguments based on very small studies of solar variation and such. While this is "little science," some of it is interesting. The problem is that partisan policy people take those studies and try to use it to take down "big science" (stuff based on hundreds of thousands of man hours and detailed multi-national datacollection). I've noticed that most books on climate change denial are not written by scientists, but the papers they cite are.