The reactionary push-back on Global Warming has turned me from a firm believer into somebody who is more open-minded about the subject. There are parts of the case for Global Warming that don't add up entirely - but that doesn't necessarily mean it's all wrong.
Contributing to that is the conservative approach to disputing Global Warming - which suffers from the fact that it is a conservative approach.
Like disputing the age of the Earth or the facts regarding evolution, conservatives decide what they believe first and try to dredge up supporting facts afterward, which means even if they're right, they're wrong in the way they got there.
The conservatives who dispute Global Warming often undermine their argument by confusing real fact with conjecture, half-truth and (sometimes) outright lies. A close examination of the conservative argument against Global Warming runs into several so-called 'truths' that contradict each other.
That's what keeps their case from being watertight. You can't just scoop up all the 'reasons' why Global Warming is a myth unless they logically fit together.
Take the 'case' presented by American Policy Roundtable - an online forum for conservative discussion. Their reasons to dispute Global Warming include:
- Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.
- Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend.
- Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes.
- The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.
- A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.
- Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing.
- Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets.
- The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.”
Where the Conservatives get it Right
Firstly, the facts that do shake the foundations of Global Warming Theory:
- Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes.
One such computer model used 'flux adjustments' to justify boosting the claimed impact of Global Warming by 2500%. Another produced the same 'hockey stick' predication for global temperatures no matter what numbers were entered into the database. Telephone numbers from the local Yellow Pages produced the same result as accurate temperature readings!
The scientists in charge are either postulating wildly, or simply lying their arses off.
- Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend.
Scientists have been recording ground temperatures for decades, watching them steadily increase to support the Global Warming theory. However, satellite readings of the troposphere (the layer of the atmosphere where scientists predicted the biggest increase) originally showed no discernible increase in temperature over the course of 23 years - undermining the case for climate change.
Since then, the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) has 'corrected' that data to better support their case for Global Warming. Given the less than accurate computer models I complained about above, I find these 'corrections' highly suspicious.
While they don't disprove global warming theory, they certainly make me more skeptical about the evidence used to support it.
Where the Conservatives have got it Wrong
Then let's look at the 'facts' that undermine the argument against Global Warming.
- Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.
This chart illustrates that 97% of scientists who study climate change agree that Global Warming is a fact.Over 90% of climatologists who don't study climate change, merely the climate, don't dispute Global Warming either.
As OSO succinctly put it: "It is obvious from the study that the "controversy" exists only in the minds of the general public and not in the minds of the experts who know the facts."
Just as the dodgy computer models and 'corrected' data cast doubt on the case for Global Warming, the fact that the opponents blatantly lie makes it very difficult to take them (or their arguments) seriously. If they lie about this, what else are they lying about?
- The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.
Conservatives think they demand a high burden of proof (which is why they still haven't accepted evolution.) The truth is, scientists demand an even higher burden of proof (which is why gravity is still considered a theory.)
Short of having total control over the entire planet's CO2 production (including farting cows) it would be impossible to 'prove' Global Warming. Instead, you have to make do with millions of pages of evidence that indicate that it's real.
But even that isn't the real kicker in the argument. I mentioned earlier than the conservative argument against Global Warming is often self-defeating. This is an example.
Conservatives argue that the world isn't warming up, yet they then use the scientific data that proves it is to dispute whether or not mankind is responsible. Not only have they failed to prove their theory, they've also contradicted one of their arguments against it.
- A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.
What is doesn't do is support the belief that Global Warming would be a good thing.
Back in the middle ages, the 'warm' period was a boon - making crops grow faster and making relatively uninhabitable places (like Greenland) warm enough to colonize (as the Vikings did.)
So for the people of the medieval heatwave, the increase in temperature was a good thing. However, there were merely millions of them - as opposed to the billions who inhabit Earth at the moment. This means those millions could simply move to escape the less positive effects - like rising oceans and desertification.
Because the world is so densely populated today, rising sea levels and the expansion of the desert will prove devastating for millions of people - there's no way around that fact.
One of the most compelling pieces of evidence supporting Global Warming theory is the fact that the Sahara Desert expands 30 miles further south each and every year - destroying grassland and forcing more and more people towards starvation.
There are simply too many of us on this little planet - so Global Warming will be devastating in a way undreamed of back in the 'hot' medieval period.
Where the Conservatives got it Stupid
Finally, we need to examine the last three 'arguments' against global warming - these neither support or oppose the theory. They're merely stupid.
- Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing.
The cost and effectiveness of any anti-Global Warming campaign is a very important topic to discuss. The fact that China and India churn out more and more gases every year makes the West's effort to curb their CO2 emissions somewhat self-defeating.
But whatever you might feel about the government's plans to tackle Global Warming, that has no relevance on whether or not Global Warming is real.
- Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets.
This kind of 'argument' is pathetic. It's as futile as King Cnut, enthroned on a beach, demanding that the waves don't wet his robe.
The conservative mindset seems to equate the undesirable with the impossible. Just like they 'choose' to believe in creationism and intelligent design, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they 'choose' not to believe in Global Warming because the moment they do, they have to start addressing the difficult choices in how to deal with it.
I have a huge amount of sympathy for the conservatives, however.
When it comes to tackling Global Warming, I don't think the current administration's policy of offsets and trade caps will be the best for the country. But just because I disagree with the way this problem's being dealt with doesn't mean I'd be so arrogant as to refuse to believe in the problem itself.
- The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.”
It undermines all seven of the previous arguments.
But it gives a sensible solution to the problem - asking: If the price of today's technological marvels, international transportation and modern conveniences was Global Warming - would we have done anything differently?
The conservative position is ideologically one which embraces the status quo. In many ways, their refusal to examine the facts and accept that Global Warming is real has nothing to do with whether it is (or not.)
They just refuse to accept Global Warming theory because, if they do, it means they have to address it and deal with the consequences.
If the conservatives really wanted to win this debate, they should embrace the facts: "Global Warming might be real - but that doesn't mean we have to do anything about it."
It's not smart. It's not clever. It's not very sophisticated. But it would prove that conservatives aren't idiots (because they actually accept facts when they're thrust into their face) and it would win the support of the masses.
After all, not doing anything is something the general population are very good at.
11 comments:
You still need to explain the middle ages to me.
I can't imagine their cars and factories were polluting more than ours... yes, that is sarcasm.
I find it pretty ironic that during a period of heightened sun activity the temperatures rose... and now that the sun is at its quietest point in recorded history, the temperature is dropping.
Things that make you go hmmmmmm.
I absolutely agree with you, CK. as I said, I've become 'open minded' about it. I don't trust everything the 'scientific consensus' feeds us - I just happen to believe the conservative opposition less.
The middle ages proves that CO2 levels could rise enormously without any man-made interference - in fact, I believe they did, cyclically. There were ice-ages and heatwaves for millions of years.
So a legitimate argument is that the world is getting hotter, but it's nothing to do with mankind - it's merely one of those inevitable cycles.
The problem is, of course, that to make that argument, the conservatives would have to admit that it's getting hotter, which they're not willing to.
Do you see what I mean about some of the arguments contradicting each other?
CK, it's people like you who have made me examine this more closely and you have definitely chipped away a chink in my armor. I don't want to accept Global Warming as ideology (the church of Al Gore.) I want to know what's REALLY happening.
Sadly, there's a lot of misinformation coming from BOTH sides (like the 'corrected' data and dodgy computer models) so it's difficult to work out what's real and what's not.
In our world, energy is quality of life.
Pretty much everything that we do requires us to consume energy. Right now, as I'm reading this blog, my computer is consuming about 230 watts of power. The lights above me are consuming maybe 30 watts. This room is heated to a comfortable temperature. When I'm hungry, I walk to my refrigerator to get food, which I bought by driving to a supermarket, and which was trucked in from around the country and flown in from around the world.
When I go on vacation, I might want to drive somewhere, or fly somewhere.
That takes energy. In our world, there are three kinds of energy that matter: Hydroelectric, Nuclear, and Hydrocarbon.
We've essentially built all the hydroelectric power we can, and building new nuclear plants is hard. So for the time being, we get most of our energy from burning carbon.
If we were to stop burning carbon, we would have less energy. We could travel less, lights would go out, food would spoil, computers would shut off. That's the human cost of reducing energy consumption --- a reduction of our standard of living.
For this to be worth it, we need a convincing case that the damage caused by global warming is worse than the damage caused by stopping it. The big debate is how sensitive the world is to an increase in CO2... the response curve is logarithmic, so a doubling could mean a big change, or none at all, depending on where we are on that curve.
The thing is, we don't know. The temperature data, which was meant for predicting weather rather than monitoring climate, is hard to calibrate. We have thermometers located on the roofs of buildings and in sewage treatment plants. When these register a higher reading, it might mean that the world is warming... or that someone flipped the A/C on, or someone just flushed.
And so the thing is, you're asking us to make big changes in lifestyle on scanty evidence... and the people asking us to make this change in lifestyle don't seem to make the change themselves. Al Gore uses more electricity in a month than I do in a couple years. Climate conferences are held in Bali, rather than over Skype.
Waiting and seeing is a valid approach. Our children and grandchildren will be richer than we are, in must the same way we are richer than our parents and grandparents. (At our age.)
I think that many greens don't understand that the value of money changes over time. Say we have a problem that will cost a trillion dollars to solve today, or ten trillion in 2109. You'd be a fool to solve it today, since you could put that trillion in a an account making 3% interest, and in 100 years you'd have twenty trillion.
The IPCC talks about a sea-level rise of 18 inches in 100 years. That's what we had between 1850 and 2000... and we not only survived, we grew the amount of land the world has. We, our children, our granchildren and their grandchildren will be more than capable of dealing with what climate change occurs.
And that's why I think that without far better evidence, we should hold off on dealing with global warming. I'm not sure the potential danger is worth us making every hour like Earth Hour... with people shivering in the dark.
Wow Tom, excellent reply.
Honestly, I've been wanting to use that "shivering in the dark" line since the most recent earth hour.
This is such an interesting debate. It's for the first time that I am considering doubting the global warming, but that will not make me doubt the environmentalist, green movement.
I think all the green activist are only preaching a more mindful living, not a reduction of our standards of living. We are asked to turn on a light only when we need it, to use a computer in a way that it consumes less energy and not let water just flow uselessly at the faucet. They consider using our technology more mindfully as an increase in our standards of living: more family time, more introspection time, more connecting with the natural world.
To me, maybe the scientific proof is not out there yet, maybe the "global warming" isn't exactly the best way to describe it, but people are influencing the planet in many ways and we should maybe pay more attention to it, and not just go wild and waste resources simply because we can.
Let me put it this way.
http://www.amberlinks.org/sustainable-living/what-is-a-sustainable-carbon-footprint.html
Points out that a "sustainable" carbon footprint is between 2 and 4 tonnes of CO2.
What is a tonne of CO2? That's a little over 100 gallons of gas. Let's say that your car gets 40 mpg. You can drive 4000 miles on that tonne.
A tonne of CO2 is about 16 hours of air travel. That's enough to fly from the US, to Europe, and part of the way back.
A tonne of CO2 is 200 therms of natural gas. I used a titch under 400 therms to heat my home this winter to the mid-60s.
Electricity is at 1700 kwh per Tonne, in the US. In the last year, I used 5000 kwh, despite my exclusive use of CFLs.
I'll note that it's the total CO2 usage that matters here. So to stay within the 4 tonne limit, one could try to use half as much electricity as me (probably possible if you keep the house dark and computers and tv off), heat your home for a winter but not the spring, summer, or fall, and still be able to drive 2000 miles... but not in any gingermobile worthy of the name. (40mpg.)
My point is we're being asked to massively drop our standard of living in the name of climate change, at least if we want to make an impact on the problem rather than feel good about ourselves.
The right answer is to invest in technology that makes this an easier problem. A nuclear-hydro electric grid would drop the carbon-per-kwh to nearly 0. If it was done cheaply enough, we could consider moving to electric house heating, and plug-in-hybrid cars. I don't know of a good way to green plane travel, given the energy density required... biofuels, maybe.
But asking people to become carbon sustainable with today's technology is asking for a massive reduction of standard of living, down to the shivering in the dark levels. It goes well beyond merely eliminating waste in the system.
(Lori, how many people do you know that leave the water running uselessly, anyway?)
As usual, Tom, you present a case that's very difficult to argue with.
The major problem I have with the current policy is that while we (America/Europe) reduce our energy consumption, millions of people in India and China are increasing their energy use.
I honestly don't believe that we can make a difference because developing countries will eliminate the gains made by developed countries - while developed countries will simultaneously suffer economically and socially.
I think the only option is not to ask people to reduce their energy consumption, but find new sources of energy - which we're doing.
We want to wean ourselves on fossil fuels and foreign oil anyway. I think that can only be achieved by coming up with new, efficient and exciting alternatives, not 'capping' current energy usage.
If cleaner, cheaper, more efficient energy was readily available, wouldn't we use it willingly, instead of being made to?
Also, 'shivering int he dark' line = teh asweome.
"new, efficient and exciting alternatives"
I dare say that it's more important to find technologically and economically sound alternatives than new or exciting ones.
Nuclear power plants aren't new, and aren't terribly exciting. They just quietly run, producing 21% of the electricity used by the US. Last December, a single nuclear plant produced in half a day more power than all the solar cells in the country did for the entire month.
(To be fair, wind is getting to be a surprisingly useful power source, but no one we can rely on.)
But remember, it's technical merits that need to matter here, not novelty. Powering the country is a job for engineers, not poets.
Roland is right, you do make a good point, Tom. I'm not great with numbers, so I am not going to start an argument there.
But I had to answer about the running faucet: I used to be one of those people. I was not raised with the idea of turning off the water while brushing my teeth. Also, I used to run the faucet over a plate in the sink, then go about the kitchen to fetch something and left it running for some good and useless minutes... I did that many times and only changed my behavior after thinking how would it be to have to bring that water in a bucket from the well, like my grandmother has to do. I would certainly have more respect for it then. That's why I'm saying that just because we can, we should not waste.
Also, I am not originally from US. I am Romanian and over there the use of cars (unfortunately increasing now) is much less significant than in US. People use public transportation with great success. It is slightly less convenient than a personal car (especially in winter) but it does have other benefits: one gets to socialize more, to meet more people, and it's consuming less energy. So for me it wouldn't be completely absurd to imagine a life with only one family car which would be used sparingly (but in US this would require a lot of other adjustments--I live in the suburbs and I know the implication on urban development).
And I think 16 hours of air travel take you to Europe and completely back.
About the electricity use of home, I agree: there is not much we can do without a drop in comfort. We used in the past year almost as much as you say (around 4500Kwh) with real efforts like line drying and washing dishes by hand. So yeah, there is a limit to how much energy we can save by lifestyle change, I have to agree.
Post a Comment