Some healthy skepticism

The other night I was watching Al Gore on Letterman talking about global warming and promoting his movie. I am an admitted skeptic on the subject, and honestly don’t know what to believe. I do know that many people are accepting the existence of global warming for reasons that are less than scientific.

One phrase which struck me was when Gore declared “The scientific debate is over”, motioning his hands like an umpire calling “safe”. What a strange and manipulative thing to say -- this little rhetorical catch-phrase is intended to tell his audience not to consider any ideas but the ones he is promoting. Hardly the words of a critical thinker, and hardly an invitation for people to do their own research and form their own opinions. It is pure dogma.

Richard Lindzen, who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, heard Gore repeat his catch-phrase on another show and begs to differ:

What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place. [...]

A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998. [...]

So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.

First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists -- especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce -- if we're lucky.

Put simply, to the extent that our discussion is scientific, the debate is quite serious and ongoing. Only when we leave the realm of science can we declare the debate over.

------

Believers in global warming make the point that, even if we don’t know all the science, shouldn’t we act now, considering the potential consequences? Fine, but they often overlook an important question: what about the poorest parts of the world?

The problem is one of poverty and prosperity. We are rich in this country and we are among the most energy-efficient in the world, when measured by carbon production per $ of GDP. (Our numbers would be improved with more nuclear.)

As other countries of the world increase their wealth (especially China and India), we should expect their energy use to rise proportionately. If we are to try to control global warming by changing our ways, we may be asking people to limit their prosperity, since wealth is the most fundamental driver of energy use and carbon production.

It is unlikely that rich Westerners will give up much prosperity. Of course there are things we can do, and I am excited about them (plug-in hybrids, E85, nuclear). But these changes will dovetail into our economy, if we decide we want them. We can afford it, and we might even improve our prosperity in the long term.

It is the countries and the people who are building towards prosperity that will be asked to give up the most. India and China are highly polluting and they are just beginning to move up the prosperity scale. Keep in mind that the US economy is over 5x as large as China’s, with only 1/4 of their population. They have a long way to go and a lot of big plans.

Global warming advocates have precisely no intention of reducing their own standards of living, and offer little evaluation of cost-benefit for those whose standards will be reduced.

This why it is so dangerous to blindly sign on to global warming alarmism. If we pass bad laws based on incomplete science, we are asking a lot of poor people around the world to stay poor. We self-congratulating Westerners will never see them, but in our hearts will know we are “good people” for having “saved the planet”.

------

Look, I understand that if Gore’s predictions are true then it is a problem for all of us. I am all for new, efficient technologies as I mentioned above. But we must do a serious, scientific cost-benefit:

• What is the degree of global warming?
• What role do humans play in it?
• What are the forecasts for the future?

These are not yes-or-no questions, but matters of degree. As uncomfortable as it might be, we must measure the cost of environmental degradation vs. the benefits of new prosperity. Are we willing accept half a degree of global warming to lift 100,000,000 million people out of poverty? What is the right trade-off?

In fact, we make these sorts of evaluations every day.

Here is a simple analogy: a family of four lives on the outskirts of the Brazilian rainforest, in a mud hut. If they were to clear and farm an acre of land, they could afford a better home, an outhouse, more food and medicine and mosquito netting. They might be able to vaccinate their children and send them to school. These children, in turn, grow up to be teachers and nurses.

If we are going to save an acre of rainforest, are we also willing to commit a family to a life of relative misery? After all, as you read this, the land you are sitting on was (probably) once forested. It was cleared for your benefit, and even if you didn’t ask for it, you accept it as part of your standard of living.

By our actions, we do believe that there is an acceptable trade-off between environment and standard of living. Now we need to do the hard work of deciding whether others are allowed to make the same calculation.

I think the debate is not over...

Comments

[Jim Lippard]

I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming at this point that Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling are wrong on the science.

I attended the Skeptics Society conference in Pasadena at the beginning of June on "The Environmental Wars," and the day's presenters gave a very strong case for anthropogenic climate change. The evenings keynotes from Michael Crichton and John Stossel were somewhat embarrassing--Crichton chose a completely different lecture topic (though in Q&A he admitted the reality of CO2 increase, of the greenhouse effect, and of anthropogenic causes for CO2 increase, though he didn't draw the logical inference). Stossel expressed skepticism about anthropogenic climate change, but didn't address any evidence--he just made an inductive inference from "doomsayers have always been wrong before."

There were a number of presentations that addressed what should or shouldn't be done as a consequence--Jonathan Adler spoke about the failure of federal regulation, Gregory Benford discussed a number of possible technological solutions for carbon sequestration and UVB mitigation to produce a cooling effect, and Greg Arnold talked about emissions trading markets.

Adler live-blogged the whole conference here: http://commonsblog.org/archives/000688.php

DeSmogBlog live-blogged it here: http://www.desmogblog.com/Skeptics-Conference

I offered some comments here:
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/06/skeptics-society-conference.html
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/06/adler-on-federal-environmental.html

[AndrewMSV]

To further expand on your last analogy, I'd like to offer this anecdote:
For those of us that have the keen insight to understand that recycling is a racket, I once had the pleasure of telling an irrate friend who was scolding me for having tossed a soda can in the trash instead of recycling it, that he should be glad for my trash because "the house he is living in was built on landfill created by my trash!"

[uggs for cheap]

211 I want to say your blog is very great. I usually like to read some thing new about this because I%u2019ve the comparable blog in my Country on this subject so this help%u2019s me a lot. I did a search on the topic and found a good number of blogs but nothing like this.Thanks for writing so much inside your blog.