Why I am no longer a skeptic on climate change
Before any discussion of global warming (or climate change if you prefer) can begin, one unfortunately is expected to state up front if they accept it or are a skeptic. So my disclosure is that I currently accept anthropogenic (i.e. human caused) Global Warming (AGW) as a scientific fact, despite considering myself a 'skeptic' in general. I wasn't born believing that AGW is real though. When I first heard of AGW years ago, it was through the mainstream media. I got the impression from the media that there was a strong legitimate debate about the veracity of AGW. At first I did not know what to believe, but suspected that humans weren't the cause of global warming, if it was happening at all. I never much liked the environmentalism movement and was therefore skeptical of all their claims, whether they made sense or were hyperbolic. As I got more involved with the skeptical community, I learned which sources were trustworthy and which were less so on various scientific issues. I also learned about the non-rational psychological processes that can lead people to believe or not believe certain ideas. But honestly, I do not know exactly when, how, or why my views changed, but it's interesting to briefly look back and examine why I did not accept AGW, and perhaps it can give us some clues as to why others still don't.I find that most people that are skeptical of global warming do not have good rational reasons for their skepticism. According to a recent article in my local paper (originally from Agence France-Presse), people do not accept global warming because it would negatively impact their desire to consume. I think this theory may help explain some AGW doubt. People do not want to feel guilty about their habits. In order to assuage guilt, we either attempt to fix the cause of the guilt, which takes effort, or we deny that the problem exists, which is much easier. This denial is not done purposefully, it is done subconsciously. Through psychological factors such as cognitive dissonance, our brain decides for us what we should believe, on an instinctual level. We don't actively choose what to believe, we are influenced in many ways and our beliefs are then formed. Rational judgement of scientific evidence is only one of these influences on our beliefs. In fact, for the case of AGW, I'd even argue that the scientific evidence plays an even smaller part in someone's acceptance.As someone with libertarian/right-wing values, I've learned to accommodate the inconvenient truth of AGW. I think the turning point may have been learning about arch-skeptic (and libertarian) Michael Shermer's about face on the issue. The fact that the founder of Skeptic Magazine could not remain an AGW skeptic made me re-examine my personal AGW skepticism. It made me take a fresh look at an issue that I realized may have been clouded by subconscious influences. After reading debunking after debunking of poor AGW skeptic arguments, I had no more excuses. Just as some religious people find ways to accommodate the fact of evolution, I found ways to accommodate global warming despite my political views. As the president of a local skeptic organization I'm often asked if I've ever changed my mind due to scientific evidence, I'm proud to say that in this case I did.
via Jonathan Abrams: Why I am no longer a skeptic on climate change - Full Comment.
14 comments:
I guess I'm a skeptic until climate science can deliver the big hammer; The big proof that CO2 is responsible for warming the planet. They have lots of theories, and lots of evidence and most of the time nature shows them to be wrong but some time in the future they are going to find the door slamming evidence, the evicdence that closes the case. But until that time comes I am forced to remain a skeptic.
I'm sure you found one piece of evidence which tipped you to the dark side. What was it? Surely you don't go simply by the 'preponderence of evidence' story. There has to have been one point which really drove the theory home. I ahve never heard one, so I'm still waiting.
Oh by the way, read this. http://www.studentsonice.com/blog/?p=1952
I love it.
Weird, I see a comment from gavin in my email as having come in, but it is not showing up here... I thought it had some good questions so I'm re-posting it:
------------------
There are some reports that levels "have not been this high" in 15 million years, or 2 million years, or even 700,00 years. Assuming that to be true, then there must have been a shitload of SUVs thousands or millions of years ago. If not, then what could have contributed to such high CO2 levels back then?
Also, if the Earth can be destroyed by CO2, then it's quite unfortunate that pretty much EVERYTHING on Earth is made of carbon. D'oh!
If there is a positive correlation between temperature and CO2 levels, then please explain why temperatures have not continuously increased, but rather ebb and flow.
Finally, shouldn't the burden of proof be on those who assert AGW as a scientific principle? Why should skeptics have to prove a negative?
I have a hard time with the idea that human activity is the sole reason for climate change.
Solar cycle - very weak with limited observations of sunspots over the last 300 or so years. Is it possible that the sun has undiscovered cycles?
The whole thing with the earth's orbit, the tilt of the axes and variations in the elliptical shape of the orbit - Those cycles that last for 100,000 years and all. Do we have enough data to understand what is going on? Do we know all the cycles at play?
Big Items that change climate without regards to cycles, like comets, astriods and volcanos.
If we are the cause then the good news is that we have burned through most of the cheap fossil fuel. The human race is going green! Not because it is the right thing to do. It is just going to get too expensive to use fossil fuels any more. Now if we could only get them to replant the rain forest.
RJ
Still looking for that "door slamming evidence" are we?
I'm telling you, you'll NOT find it, because it has been made a political issue, like I implied, by the oil industry.
So, go ahead debate onward, while the oil industry sits back, smiles and pats itself on the back on a job well done.
(As a matter of fact the same strategy of extending the debate was done not only by the pharmaceutical and chemical industry, by even the ALCOHOL and BEER INDUSTRY, if you really want to know some fundamental basics.)
Yes, I'm looking for “door slamming evidence” before dumping trillions dollars into something. How dare we ask questions and demand proof before altering the entire schematic of modern life in the world.
One may hate the "evil oil companies" and evil pharmaceutical companies, but without both, humans wouldn't live to be 48 years old. See page 35, showing life expectancy of 47.3 in 1900 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_09.pdf. What about the evil boating industry, which will see record profits when all land on Earth is submerged? I'm sure their behind it, too. But I'm sure all the "green" companies out there wouldn't mind going out of business, and scientists wouldn't mind losing their research grants, if AGW was proved false. Obviously, there could be no motive behind these industries to "hide the decline."
Just because people make a profit from something doesn't make it bad. Profits pull people out of poverty, increase people's standard of living, and allow them to enjoy many of the benefits even impoverished people in the United States take for granted.
Dear gavin,
Now, I said, "don’t get gnarled and riled." I realize this is an emotional issue, but don't let it pull you down.
I never once said oil, pharmaceutical or even boating companies were "evil." This isn't a religious issue, but more like a political and economic debate about ecological issues. (No need to go into tangents about "standard of living" and pharmaceutical industry. The reason I brought it up is to indicate that industry strategies are the same across the board. Anyway, I don't think anyone will argue with you about the increase in life expectancy since the early 1900s.)
Please get a grip and realize you're not alone. A lot of us are being led into an ongoing debate because, well, not "trillions dollars," but at least over $2,000,000 (as I listed above) are being pumped by oil companies into their representative organizations to keep that debate going.
Nope, I have no problem with "profit," but when profit becomes large enough and spent easily enough to fund huge lobbyist organizations, as well as to slant scientific investigations (at the cost of the consumer I might add), then I begin to worry.
Ann, fair enough on my misquoting the "evil" corporations, etc. I apologize, and can tell you I wasn't riled up. Perhaps we can agree that there is too much money being floated around to influence our leaders and policymakers. In fact, that is the very reason everyone should fight like hell against an overarching world government and U.S. federal government. The farther removed our leaders are from us, the smaller our voices become.
Hi RJ,
The earth has heated and cooled many times for possibly different reasons during its history. The consensus of climate scientists is that, yes, this time, humans are the main cause. The earth is a complicated dynamic system, but we don't have to find or understand every puzzle piece to see the big picture.
A big problem from what I've read is that way before we run out, as oil gets more scarce, we will use dirtier stuff and pollution will greatly increase.
"The farther removed our leaders are from us, the smaller our voices become."
Excuse me, but I think you mean, the farther removed our leaders are from us, in the figurative and political sense, the greater our voices become? That is, if we still have a workable democratic constitution.
Then, I'll agree, although I personally don't want be led by anyone. Sometimes, I wonder though just who our "leaders" are, whether its our government officials or those who lead our supposed "leaders" with dollars and little sense. And, of course, by "us" you're also including the scientists among us. (But, I'll bet you're still looking for that door slamming evidence. It's ok, I wish you the best.)
Ugh. No, I meant what I said. If you think congressional members and the president actually listen to you, then you are deluded. (304,059,724 U.S. population / 435 House seats = 698,987 per representative; 304,059,724 / 100 senate seats = 3,040,597 per senator) It is why the "workable" Constitution divided the country into states--because local "leaders" are closer to their citizens and have greater accountability.
(And also, the Constitution was not meant to be a representative democracy, per se, as senators originally were not democratically elected but appointed by the governor of each state. The founders designed the country to not be a complete democracy to avoid the tyranny of the majority.)
If you have a problem with people/corporations buying votes, perhaps you should admonish corrupt elected officials/leaders and the system that allows it, rather than the private citizens who play the game.
Why do you only question the motives of lobbyists/corporations and not the government? All seek power, but it's the government that has the ability to be tyrannical and oppressive. I can imagine that the only time you would like to ask questions of your government is when a Republican is president.
To answer your question:
Because our entire government edifice from its electoral process (e.g. during campaigns) to what our supposed representatives vote for (e.g. through the influence of powerful lobby groups) is based on bucks. Everything and more so today than just 30 or 40 years ago. This is not, as I understand it, what some of our forefathers, other than the Federalists and Madison and his cronies, had in mind when they created our supposed democratic constitution, which I think has something to with "people," as in those among us who have only voices, not big bucks.
It really doesn't have much to with individual "corruption" per se. All sides of whatever party line you want to draw agree corruption is wrong.
It's interesting that you should characterize them as "Federalists and Madison and his cronies." You do realize they are just as legitimate forefathers and architects of the Constitution as the anti-federalists, don't you? And why use such rhetoric against people who merely have a different philosophical theory than you obviously do?
Gavin,
1) Would you fly in a hot air balloon if I told you 95% of it doesn't have a hole?
2) Would you burn down your house because it was built where there was once a volcano?
3) Would you bet the future of our species on your belief that "Climategate" is not an industry-manufactured fake conspiracy?
4) What we are disputing is the risk of the house catching fire. The earth is quite habitable right now. The house is not on fire at the moment.
5) Yes, we may have stopped an ice age and even if we have a major climate change, the point of our big brains is that some of us will have a good chance of finding a way to survive. There are events which could make the entire Earth uninhabitable, however, and so far, we don't have a back up planet.
You said "While local control, like in traditional New England village assemblies, is really nice, we today can’t really do that, can we? Villages no longer depending on local mfg and farming, counties depend on other counties, and countries today are in the midst of the international community..."
The Constitution was designed primarily for local control, not centralized control, with the exception of interstate commerce to facilitate trade between the states (villages). Therefore, nothing has changed as it relates to the viability of local control over most policies, with the exception of trade.
In addition, the country was designed to thwart the tyranny of the masses, which have been responsible for many evils throughout time. Our federal system (local control, limited centralized government), the three branches of the federal government, and the electoral college are all devices to prevent the tyranny of the masses. So yes, masses rightfully should be critiqued. It is for this very reason that our country is not a direct democracy, but a republic.
I agree with you that the U.S. is in too many foreign countries. But that is not imperialistic, nor is it the new world order of which Bush spoke. Rather, his new world order is that for which you are advocating.
Please define a "consensus" of people, and explain how that proves anything at all. There was also at one time a consensus that the Earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the Earth, and that life was spurred from spontaneous generation. Please don't cite to wikipedia to support your scientific assertions.
Post a Comment