While there are still some loud shrill voices denying the reality of climate change, Jamais Cascio thinks we may have finally reached the tipping point where such denialism is irredeemably exposed as obfuscation by those with vested interests – I sincerely hope he’s right.
That said, even advocates for environmental issues should be prepared to question the accepted dogmas; for example, a detailed study seems to indicate that the “eat local” philosophy may be misguided by the best of intentions, and that the long distance transportation of foodstuffs may actually have a smaller footprint than locally grown equivalents when other factors are introduced into the equation. [Brian Dunbar]
If the evidence is so conclusive, why attack the skeptics? What happened to arguing the science?
Why is it okay to question the intentions of corporate interests, but not to question the interests of those who are pushing the climate change agenda? What makes one opinion more virtuous than the other?
Finally, what if the only political solution to climate change was a severe curtailing of our rights and freedoms? Would giving up these rights still be worth the sacrifice?
As far as I can determine from reading the arguments in the articles linked, they *are* ‘arguing the science’, as you put it – though I’d have used the word ‘discussing’, myself. And the skeptics are doing a very good job of shooting themselves in the foot without being helped.
And the only thing ‘pushing the climate change agenda’ is climate change itself. It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of acting on the available evidence – evidence which says we’re in big trouble if we don’t start fixing things.
Look at it this way – what do the scientists ‘pushing the climate change agenda’ have to gain from pulling the wool over our eyes? Now, what do the corporate interests stand to gain – or rather, stand to not lose – by doing the same? How else are we to judge the ‘virtue’ of someone’s agenda if not by looking at their past record?
And your final point? Kind of a ‘live free or die’ argument, which appeals to a certain facet of my thinking. But it’s not just me I have to think about, is it? It’s my friends, our kids, their kids, and so on. The species as a whole, you know. And I think a broken planet would curtail our freedoms pretty badly, too … but ultimately, that’s a straw man argument. Just like yours.
At the end of the day, you’re free to believe whatever you want, and I’d not take that away from you. But I would request that if you insist on doing an emu impression, please do it somewhere out of the way and let the rest of us get on with trying to fix things? Just think of how satisfying it’ll be when you can come and tell us all you told us so!
Great job in splitting everything in black and white, republican and democrat, taliban or freedom-loving.
In reality, there are different groups of skeptics. I’ve seen testimonies and serious debate done by several physicists – which are only interested in the scientific facts of global warming. For instance, the possibility that the suns massive energy surges might actually be causing 90% of all the ruckus.
Their big “crime” is that they try to separate facts from politically motivated fiction (for or against) but are shamelessly quoted and flagshipped (if that’s even a word) by those with much larger and, granted, more cynical purposes.
There are plenty of reasons to stop carbon emissions – but let’s make sure we don’t kid ourselves about the most important ones, at least.
One of the most irritating things about the denialist perspective is the habit of trotting out long-debunked arguments over and over again. In this case, “the sun causes global warming.”
To say it very simply, and slowly: No, it doesn’t.
Here are three links from this year alone that underscore that point:
“The finding adds to the evidence that mainstream climate models are right about the likely extent of future human-generated warming, Tung says. It also effectively rules out some lower estimates in those models.”
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19526164.800-global-warming-and-cooling-linked-to-the-sunspot-cycle.html
“Direct satellite measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures, according to new research.”
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html
(Direct link to Royal Academy article:)
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/index.cfm?page=1086
“Some uncertainty remains about the role of natural variations in causing climate change. Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most. During the initial discovery period of global warming, the magnitude of the influence of increased activity on the Sun was not well determined.”
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html
Be a “skeptic,” that’s fine. Keep an eye out for new claims. But don’t keep dredging up zombie arguments.
I accept those findings as much as you do. But I also acknowledge a number of findings that predict the opposite scenario.
I’m no expert on this topic, I’ll admit as much – and I certainly acknowledge you as the primary knower on the subject. I find the whole debate interesting primarily because of the implications regarding scientific discourse in general.
Some points I saw in a recent documentary (sorry I cannot provide better documentation, you’ll have to trust my memory!):
1) The recent decline in solar activity may not be tangible yet. I heard a seemingly respectable researcher stress the complexity of Earth’s atmosphere – and that immediate effects of solar surges or declines may be offset by several decades – mostly due to the atmospheric processes that we have hardly understood fully yet. Doesn’t this position warrant some respect? I remember seeing a curve describing earth temperatures as directly correlated to solar activity…but with a relatively large offset….easily the 50 years or so, that major carbon emissions have been around.
2) The relative efficiency of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas is not impressive in itself, compared to the volume of the entire atmosphere. As mentioned, there are certainly enough reasons to limit emissions – human health, resource consumption, water and forest contamination – but the shroud of carbon dioxide is simply not very dense or in itself a critical factor. I think samples of polar ice were mentioned, in which prehistoric carbon dioxide levels were proven to have been much much higher than nowadays. Without any catastrophic effect on temperatures.
I resent the term “denialist perspective” applied on scientists in general. As much as I wouled resent “enviro fearmonger”, or the like.
It might fit a lot of American politicians and fossil fuel lobbyists – but I really think you are doing the true scientific discourse a disservice by applying such a term so broadly. You’re trying to use “their own weapons against them” and it will only tighten the knot, I’m sure. Scientists on either side of the fence will be adamant that the point has been missed. And those caught in the middle (which are usually the open-minded, intelligent ones) will become completely invisible, debate-wise.
Besides, another interesting perspective is that it is not only fossil fuel lobbyism that now constitutes heavy industry’s only position. The whole carbon emission has already become a huge industry in itself. Countries are lobbying for the rights to sell and distribute quotas. Huge amounts of money have entered that picture, too.
Although the quota system was meant as a preventive measurement in the beginning, one might argue that this is becoming an establishment in itself – which is not really interested in abolishing the carbon emission prevention scheme, regardless whether carbon emissions are proven consequential or not.
You might see my position as flip-flop, but I just happen to think that big, fat forecasts are dangerous business, on either side of the divide. Mankind has never been good a that sort of thing. I think we should focus on other arguments to further green living – because models that want to say this or that on the entirety of Earth’s climate and the solar effect are just too damn fraught with interpretation.
A few comments about your post to consider, Paul Raven:
“And the skeptics are doing a very good job of shooting themselves in the foot without being helped”
In your view perhaps, but why do skeptics arguments resonate with the public and media? Are we all stooges because we are allowing so called corporate interests to manipulate us?
“And the only thing ‘pushing the climate change agenda’ is climate change itself”
Perhaps back in 1992 or so, this might have been true. To argue that this is case now is manifestly dishonest. Vast portions of the media, political and scientific community have invested real and political capital in the idea that AGW is happening and if we don’t *do something* we will wreck the planet.
“It’s a matter of acting on the available evidence – evidence which says we’re in big trouble if we don’t start fixing things.”
And what happens when new, contradictory evidence emerges? The last two days have seen a re-examination of certain surface temps taken in North America, questioning reverse the “fact” that 1998 was the warmest year on record.
Skeptics are right to question AGW evidence and prevailing wisdom because it can be incorrect.
Why? Because when experts are asked if they are 100% sure of something, they are in realty only 75% correct.
“But it’s not just me I have to think about, is it? It’s my friends, our kids, their kids, and so on. The species as a whole, you know. And I think a broken planet would curtail our freedoms pretty badly, too”
Not a strawman agrument because I do not accept that if we do nothing that we all going to die. Nobody knows for sure what will happen. We should all be skeptical of apocalyptic predictions…this stuff is peddled by Paul Erhlich and Malthus
I can make a pretty acurrate guess that you will have a well written rebuttal to my comments. Little that we say here will change either of our minds or further our understanding of each other’s position.
But allow me to leave you with a final thought to enhance your perspective.
If you think it’s going to be extremely difficult to get people in industrialized countries to change their polluting ways (just look at the resistance now), and if you agree that a nip here or a tuck here is not going to make a hill of beans difference (Kyoto stage 1 will do very little to prevent AGW according to IPCC) and that a dramatic change is required to head off disaster, then I offer this hope to you.
A dramatic change is headed our way if we continue to industrialize and grow wealthier, on a global scale. Our global population is set to peak around 2050 or so. The worlds future is what Japan and Western Europe are starting to go through right now. We know that as a society gets wealthier and more educated they have less children.
So what will the population look like in 2100? 2200? Don’t you think its a pretty reasonable position to suggest that the impact of billions less people inhabiting Earth within two centuries will do more to protect the environment than any central planning politicians can dream up in th here and now? And cost a whole lot less too.
Jasper:
Well, I’m willing to look at supporting evidence for your assertions, if you have some. That’s how science works, as far as I can remember.
That re-examination would appear to not take all the relevant data into account.
Quite simply, no, I don’t believe that at all. Climate change is a cumulative effect that has been building up for a long time; if we completely zeroed our carbon emissions today, the changes would continue for at least another century. Furthermore, the shrinking population argument fails to take into account the projected increase in lifespan that is already manifesting itself.
But as you say, we’re both pretty entrenched in our positions here – though I must commend your lack of invective, especially in light of my initial reply which was, in hindsight, rather sarcastic in tone, and for which I apologise.
Let me end by saying I would be overjoyed – absolutely ecstatic, in fact – to be proved wrong on the climate change issue. But I’m not a gambler at the best of times, especially not when I have what I believe to be a good assessment of the odds and stakes available to me.
Sure, if you’re right, maybe we’ll have spent a lot of time and money working out ways to minimise our impact on the planet; maybe it will turn out to be unnecessary, but I’d hardly describe it as a waste, whatever the circumstances. But the potential outcome of us being right, but doing nothing about it, is too horrible to contemplate.
Paul,
No need to apologize, I didn’t find your initial post overly sarcastic.
I think we have a good understanding of where we are coming from on this issue. My postion on AGW has evolved from a believer to “skeptical, but I have an open mind”. I think my views are fairly consistent with Lomborg.
Apocalyptic predictions aside, there are many reasons why I find it so difficult to accept AGW.
Doesn’t it bother you to hear things like “the science is settled” and the “time for debate is over”, when we still have so much more to learn about our climate?
Or what about the idea that there should be the equivalent of Nuremberg Trials for AGW skeptics or efforts to portray people who hold skeptical views about AGW to be on par with Holocaust deniers?
That kind of crazy talk should scare you because if unchallenged, some of your non-conformist behaviours or ideas might be the next thing that “responsible” people want to change.
The science is always evolving and I look forward to learning about what was previously unknown. But to date, a good portion of the AGW “side”, if you will, has the look, feel and taste of a well run PR campaign with celebrity endorsements, scary predictions and a smug piousness that sticks in my craw.
Woo hoo, look at all the mudslinging. And you’ll all flame me too. I don’t care. Here is what I see in the media and weblogs on the subject:
I see people who follow the Church of Global Warming (I didn’t stutter) who deny, Deny, DENY that there could be ANY opposing view, anybody who says we aren’t going to die is WRONG WRONG WRONG and they are being financed by the Big Oil Companies and Big Industry.
I see the skeptics, who are just saying “Maybe it isn’t as big an issue as you want it to be, surely there is a problem, but aren’t there other ways to fix it without controlling everybody?
I think there’s a middle ground to be had here, which is going on in both science and politics now in Bali. There’s enough evidence to show that there’s some warming going on now, with the Northwestern Passage ice-free for the first time in human history a dramatic example. Science is done on a % agreement basis – anything over 90% certain is almost certainly true. Speaking as an astro/particle physicist, if i’m writing a paper against a certain view which is well documentated and 90% of papers disagree, i’m probably wasting my time.
Of course, there’s a small chance I’m not but what people tend to skip over is that scientific consensus is not a summary of opinions but rather a summary of results. When people say ‘90% of climate scientists’ agree they actually mean ‘90% of the results of scientific papers’ agree. That’s a completely different thing.
The thing I don’t understand about the whole flame war that this inevitably descends into is what climate change denialists think the other side’s motives are. It’s easy to say someone linked to the oil business is going to strongly protest anything that tells them they have to cut down on their profits. However, what is there for climate scientists to gain by claiming warming is happening and it’s a problem? They’ll be suffering the consequences just like the rest of us, it’s not in their interest to be doom and gloom. In fact, if anything, their nature as human beings on this planet is more likely for them to skew their results towards less damage caused by global warming, not more.
A lot of climate scientists have been studying and practicing their methods for most of their lives. Disagreeing with the vast majority of them because you don’t like their prognosis is like ignoring your doctor when he tells you you have cancer. I know I’m not qualified to make either assessment, so I trust the judgment of those who do.
Hippie:
You’re reading very different ones to me, then. That sounds much more like the spun versions of climate science reports. I’ll admit that there’s probably as many primitivist back-to-the-Stone-Age kooks as there are hardcore denialists, but the problem with the political polarisation of this debate is that it’s too easy to lose sight of the middle ground, which is largely populated by experienced professionals who are extremely worried about the condition of our ecology, and who stand to gain nothing but opprobrium from telling us their concerns.
As a side note, I think it’s a little cheeky to get all pre-emptive with the accusations of flame-wars when you’ve just revived a months-old thread, seemingly for no purpose other than to coax a flame war? We like a good debate here, but I’d prefer it if you’d back up your opinions with source material. That way it becomes a debate, as opposed to mudslinging, surely? 😉
Folks, please take a short break to take a quick look at http://www.petitionproject.org/ and http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Seitz_Letter.html and http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html
The tens of thousands of scientists who signed this petition are generally well-educated professionals in highly-applicable scientific fields; not mindless fools; nor are they evil, corrupt, oil-company shills. It is both intellectually dishonest and highly-offensive to accuse every single one of them of some ridiculous or mindless “denialism,” causally dismissing their views and analyses, yet refusing to even question the motives and/or analyses of those who forcefully promote politically-correct Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) dogma. The basic fact of the matter is that the science is NOT “settled.” Nope. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Was that the same petition signed by such not-entirely-genuine scientists as “Geraldine Halliwell, Spice Girl”, Dr Koslover?
Be sure to take the time to read this well-referenced debunking of that decade-old denialist hoax, folks! Merely in the interest of seeing both sides of the argument transparently, you understand …
What the hell is a “climate change denialist”? Is anyone out there actually denying that the climate changes?
Way to frame the debate (what little is allowed) while hiding behind the rubric of “science”.
Now the AGW believers can get back to fiddling with their computer projections that can’t even recreate what has already happened while disingenuously asking what possible motive the grant seeking scientists have for feeding the hysteria. The true denialism is strong with the man-made global warming religionists.