Arguing the Science of Climate Change
A self-described conservative on Facebook admonishes a fellow conservative who had majored in broadcasting in college and is now telling the world that climate change is a hoax: I think those of us on the right make a mistake when we try to argue the science of global warming.
You are entitled to your opinion and to argue that it’s a hoax, but politically I think the question is, do we want to spend taxpayer funds on green energy and mandating companies do things a certain way, or do we want to let markets decide that? I am unsure if global warming exists, but I honestly don’t want a dime spent or a federal law created fighting it regardless of if it exists or not.
I respond:
I think you’re absolutely correct in dissuading people with no scientific training from arguing about matters of science. It’s one of two reasons I don’t argue about Chinese literature or Greek mythology: I’m not qualified; in fact, I don’t know the first thing about either subject, and I’d be afraid that I’d be embarrassing myself (which I certainly would be) were I to “get into it” with experts in these domains. I’m sure you agree at some level; I don’t think you believe that baseball players have rights to opinions on quantum mechanics or paleontology.
The other reason is as follows: not to quibble with words, but I’m sure you were just being kind to your friend when you said someone (with or without training in a scientific subject) has a “right to an opinion” on that subject; science is about facts, not opinions. Physics doesn’t care one iota about what you believe.
I’m also surprised to see someone of intelligence say that, even if global warming does exist, and has the broad ensemble of highly probable horrific consequences that scientists claim, that you think no effort on the part of the public sector should be made to deal with it. That’s a “fringe” viewpoint if there ever were one. It’s also a bit hypocritical. We’ve been subsidizing the oil companies for 90 years, but you don’t seem too concerned about that.
I would add that your objection to “mandating that companies do things a certain way” also qualifies as fringe. Even with environmental regulation (which is under siege from the Trump administration and may not be around much longer), we still have companies like Carnival Cruises deliberately dumping waste into our oceans and then lying in an attempt to cover it up. We still have VW conspiring with Bosch to cheat on emissions testing. I could go on, but let me just refer you to Forbes Magazine’s list of the top 20 corporate polluters. If you think that removing environmental regulation won’t make things worse, I don’t know what to tell you.
It might help if more articles explained the science behind climate change. It could cover exactly how it was discovered more than 100 years ago that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, how the earth receives heat from the sun, and how the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation causes an increase in global temperature. That really is not difficult to understand.
In the 100+ years since it was discovered that CO2 is a global warming gas, work has been done to learn by how much global temperature has varied in response to changes in CO2 concentration. Much of that is too advanced for the general public. However, the mechanism of how increased CO2 causes warming is really quite simple and could be understood by the general public. I can’t recall ever seen that carefully explained in articles which the general public is likely to read.
Frank,
I’m not a scientist, but like yourself I read and try to analyze the opinions of scientists.
Your explanation of the effects of CO2 may be accurate, but also overly simplistic. The mechanisms of CO2 in the bio-sphere are very complex, especially the effects of soil, plant life, oceans etc, which complicate your simplistic explanation of the effects of CO2, is to complicated to debate on this thread. (I’ll try a locate some articles to post).
I believe the average person was well disposed to science and scientists. However, in recent years the blending of science, politics, ideology and activism, has seriously damaged the reputation of scientists.
Joe Public used to respect the non-partisan, objective methods by which scientists sought answers to complex issues. Science was about discovering from careful research sufficient material to build a theory.
Now it seems, the theory comes first and the ‘fact’ added later to support the theory.
Recently Joe public has witnessed the politicization of science. US ‘scientists’ have announced their intention to participate in a series of highly politicized event, culminating on attending the “Earth Day” rally.
On the surface it could be argued that as citizens and “concerned scientists” they have every right to participate, and that’s true.
However, is participating in highly politically polarized demonstration likely to create increase confidence in scientific independence and objectivity ?
Many participants at these rallies are, like yourself, sincere genuine, well-intentioned folk. However, these rallies also attract extremists, crazies and cranks.
Protestors advocating “de-development”, forced population reduction, claiming humans are a “plague on the earth” etc.
The scientists participating will inevitably be associated with pseudo-scientists, including iridologists, New age crystal power, reflexologists, homeopaths, Marxists, Anarchists,people against some war somewhere, and bat-shit crazies of every description.
While all these folk have a constitutional right to free assembly, is the most appropriate forum to increase the status of science in the eyes of Joe Public ?
I feel great sympathy for genuine scientist’s as a large segment of the populace has changed it’s attitude toward scientists from admiration and respect, to animosity.
Joe Public now regards most scientists as a self-righteous elite in lab coats lecturing the plebs on how we should live. Worse, by involving themselves in politics and aligning themselves with political movements, scientists open themselves to a suspicion of duplicity and dishonesty.
This is all most unfortunate.
One of the most disturbing things about CO2 pollution is the acidification of the oceans. Soon the oceans will be too acidic for shell producing organisms to live. Plankton are shell producing organisms and they produce a vast amount of oxygen. It is one of the feedback loops that will worsen the problem of excess CO2 in the atmosphere
Bruce,
From what I’ve read, it appears as though you are correct. Of course the effects are not sufficiently understood to know for certain exactly what will happen, but they are certainly alarming. It could even be that a chain of events could release sufficient hydrogen sulfide into the atmosphere to lead to an extinction of most animal life. We should eliminate the burning of fossil fuels as quickly as possible by using currently available technologies that have been proven fully capable of doing so.
Craig,
The problem with your argument is if it were extended into every aspect of public life, then we would have a society run by ‘experts’ where the average citizen was disqualified from the decision making process.
Scientific evidence underpinning Global Warming, climate change etc,has become so riddled with advocacy, politics and pseudo-science the average citizen has grown to mistrust the motives of the principle advocates.
That’s not to say Joe Public feels qualified to judge the actual science, but he suspects the qualifications and sincerity of most advocates.
Since Joe Public is expected to fund the demands by advocates, and most of these funds have been wasted on extravagant, futile projects, it’s only natural to treat new claims with deep suspicion.
Over the lat 100 years, Joe public has been constantly alarmed by prophets of doom. All of these “prophets” boated a ‘consensus’ among their ‘peers’. One by one, these dire predictions failed to occur.
Just crying erroneously ” Wolf ” too many times, doesn’t necessarily mean no Wolf will ever appear, but with each non appearance, credibility diminishes.
The problem for the average citizen is not a lack of scientific training, but which ‘expert’ to believe. ( Consensus is a process of politics not science, even then, the consensus claim has been proven contrived ).
Joe Public isn’t helped by a media determined to sensationalize and exaggerate, while adding to the confusion with a plethora of alarmist ‘news’ stories.
Crusading “Green” advocates with bizarre interpretations and extrapolations of ‘scientific’ information, to bolster dubious agendas have also damaged the credibility of scientific conclusions in public opinion.
Even very sincere and totally genuine opinions such as the one contributed by Frank, are disputed by highly qualified experts.
For Joe Public, it’s not a case of “not believing experts”, but “which expert to believe”. How often in science have lone dissenters been proved right ? How many cries of “Wolf” have been shown inaccurate or turned out to be a Chihuahua ?
Craig, I think when you start to disqualify any, even the most humble, of citizens a right to an opinion, you a on a slippery slope.
Just a small observation of detail. Baseball players can have opinions on scientific subjects. Anyone can have an opinion on climate change. I would also like to believe that a scientist could humbly listen to a lay opinion if it has signs of merit.
But there are also such things as weight and time constraints. Someone who studies a subject probably should be given more weight than someone who does not or denies the utility of such study. Also as a practical matter we can’t expect every scientist to listen to every person who dreams up a notion based more upon yesterday’s diet than study.
Breath,
Fairly said, and well expressed