Global warming skeptics
November 4th 2006 18:52
It's blasphemy, these days, to deny human-caused global warming. All the forces of popular opinion are against you.
But if you ask anyone in the street why they believe in it (even if, secretly, they don't), how will they justify themselves? They'll tell you that they saw the movie, or that they read a book somewhere, or they'll cite anecdotes, or they'll simply say that everyone believes, so you'd be crazy to doubt.
(Almost as if there were a genetic bias in humans to be gullible with respect to doomsday prophecies.)
Well, "An inconvenient truth" exemplifies the basic problem with these answers, an issue of trust: -- your presentation is very convincing, Mr Gore, but how do I know that any of the facts you rely on are accurate?
There are people (Republicans in particular) who will dispute the movie line by line, who will take issue with everything from the accuracy of the temperature numbers, to the reality of polar bear death. And importantly, it might be argued that it's not a case of increased carbon dioxide causing global warming, but of global warming causing increased carbon dioxide.
Wikipedia has an article on such skeptics, and a list of some names (impressive enough credentials, I reckon; take a look and tell me what you think).
In New Zealand, there is the skeptical "Climate Science Coalition".
So what and who should you believe? What is rational to believe?
How to arbitrate between the skeptic and the dogmatist when, simply, we have no expertise, no resources.
Can you simply give up your brain to statistics, and believe the safest bet lies always with the mainstream?
Can you be relieved of the responsibility, to look at the evidence and the arguments, to decide for yourself?
***
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article An Inconvenient Truth.
| 170 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by spain01
Juan Carlos
spain again
While your'e about it
Viva l'difference
Fire News Blog
Cities dying of thirst.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Disappointingly little to say in reply, I'm afraid; so will just paraphrase something from my post.
My impression (largely Wikipedia- and anecdote-based) is that almost no scientists dispute global warming per se, but there's at least a handful (probably a very small number) who vocally dispute such issues as human causation, future trends, and ability to do anything about it.
So, a standard skeptical position would be to accept the New Guinea measurements (never heard of them; am assuming they're some sort of warming indicators), but to write them off as a natural or temporary phenomena (perhaps saying that the temperature is no higher than it has been in the past).
I don't feel qualified to enter into such discussions...
Comment by spain01
Juan Carlos
spain again
While your'e about it
Viva l'difference
Fire News Blog
Cities dying of thirst.
Comment by Damo
On face value I believe that there is less bias in recent climate reports and less in the way hidden political agendas. Hence I am listening a bit closer this time.
I'm not as qualified as the scientists that make these claims so I must decide who to trust. I think that is the problem most people are having right now.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
One might similarly ask, how do know the earth is round? How do you know that the atomic weight of carbon is x, or the date of birth of Newton is y? Almost all of our knowledge depends on long chains of argument from authority.
Comment by MattH
Nutty Fudgekins
Either way the debate about how large an impact we've had seems to be fairly pointless.
Fact is it is an issue we are facing and all this political bullshit merely diverges attention away from any sort of preperation.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
This was news to me. I had no impression from the media or elsewhere that this was the case. Recent reports suggest that the hole is bigger than ever. But Wikipedia seems to back Gore up.
I do think there's value in a CO2 debate, and that it's not merely political bullshit. -- Why treatthe discussion as just politics, and not a live factual question?
After all, if global warming is not a problem, or if there's nothing that can be done about it, then why pour a couple more billion dollars down that drain? (Global warming skeptics are quick to point out the various harms that the "mass hoax" has caused and will cause.)
Regarding the rationality of believing in the ozone hole vs that of believing in carbon emissions, one thing to note is that there's some sort of controversy with CO2, but apparently (according to the hive mind of Wikipedia anyway) little controversy over CFCs:
"There is no controversy or debate regarding ozone depletion. There is a general consensus among most atmospheric physicists and chemists that the scientific understanding has now reached a level where countermeasures to control CFC emissions are justified, although the decision is ultimately one for policy-makers.
One atmospheric scientist, Fred Singer, questions the significance of the role that CFCs play in ozone depletion. Singer does not deny that CFC's play some role, but believes that other sources (including climatalogical and natural origins) play a larger role."
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
Who am I to question?
But I'm inclined to the view that emission of green house gases is causing global warming which is a very real threat.
I have not heard persuasive argument to the contrary.
This is an important topic and you should have a good audience.
I hope you come up with a solution.
katyzzz!
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
But it'll be a cold day in hell before I accept the idea by a few radical conservatives that humans don't affect the atmosphere at all.
Comment by ayembee
errr, wtf?! science is one of the greatest success stories in all of human history! i mean, it's only responsible every single device we take for granted today, sending us to the moon, medicine, transplants, curing disease, powered flight, the car, sanitation, understanding gravity, electricity, the structure of matter, etc etc etc...
the whole point of scientific enquiry is not to say, "this is unchanging, unwavering truth, and shall never change". it is to say "at this poiint, our very best understanding of what we have available leads us to conclude this". and, at the moment, the best-qualified people thinking about the problem today have concluded that global warming is a real problem, based on the best evidence currently available. that viewpoint will continue to be refined as more good evidence comes to light, as that is the way science works. refinement based on evidence.
people love to say things like "oh, but so-and-so was ignored by the scientific mainstream, and treated like a lunatic, but eventually turned out to correct and was merely a misunderstood genius". well, yes. once in a while that happens. the other 99% of the time the guy really did turn out to be a lunatic!
above and beyond that, the recommendations for improving enrgy efficiency and lowering man's impact on the environment are all good things! i find it utterly bizarre that people would oppose these sorts of actions. i mean, energy efficient lightbulbs use less power, so your electricity bills go down. more efficiently insulated homes that use less power make your bills go down. investing in the research and development of renewable technologies are likely to lead to more jobs and economic growth, putting the country that does it at the forefront of important new technologies.
oil is a finite resource. it will run out. most of it is found in politically volatile regions. why wouldn't you want to plan for the future and become more energy self-reliant? it makes political and economic sense, and combined with the serious potential that global warming has to make major changes to earth's environment, it would seem like a no-brainer...
(i do actually have some familiarity with the science of this too -- my first degree was astrophysics, and i took an environmental physics option... i'm not a kneejerk green either, as i actually won an essay competition at that point for pointing out that, based on available evidence, incineration was more environmentally friendly in the UK than recycling, heh..)
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
For instance back in gallileos time there was no science, it was all religion. Hence gallieleio was a minority scientist.
Comment by ayembee
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
This blog is doing really well, congratulations!
katyzzz
Comment by Anonymous
Anyone living in a big city could not dispute the reality of air pollution, and human causation. And, we all know there's a shortage of oil and natural gas.
I guess this shortage could be another example of collective belief leading to "truth." So, I guess, using hybrid or electric cars would be good for the simple reason of the price of fuel.
The thing with issues like this is that I found it important to ask "who's interests are being served?"
Who wins if global warming is not due to humans, and if we cannot stop it? Thus taking no action.
Who wins if it is due to our activity, and we can take "greener" measures to stop it?
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Dear Katy -- I think I have heard persuasive argument to the contrary (if you're curious enough, just visit some of those links and poke around), but I don't know whether to believe the facts on which that argument is based.
Here's the argument against global warming in 500 words.
Dear Ahmed -- The argument is not so much that people don't affect the environment at all, as over how much people affect the environment.
One is right to be skeptical of the politics of the debate -- but one should be equally skeptical of the defenders as well as of the critics.
Would H20 pollution count as pollution?
Dear ayembee -- thanks for the comments! Two main comments in reply.
-- There's a school of thought in philosophy of science (I think it's called "New experimentalism") that believes that what science accumulates is practical results. The interpretation of exactly what's going on might change drastically from generation to generation -- quantum mech might well be rubbished in a 100 years -- but the bridges and satellites remain.
-- Certainly agree that energy efficiency is desirable and using up non-renewable resources undesirable.
I wonder, though, if it could be argued, partly on historical grounds, that the most efficient way to proceed is in the old rape-and-pillage-the-planet manner -- until greener technologies are developed. I'm not sure what I'd say to this if the argument were mounted to me.
After all, presumably it's on economic grounds that the US and Australia refuse the Kyoto Protocol. So it might be plausible that booming economy and industry are the best drive to science.
Dear Anonymous -- a thought-provoking comment. Thanks.
Who wins if global warming is a big hoax? Well, just guessing, but any number of research institutes and scientists and media (it's an area into which an enormous amount of money has been spilled), and any number of countries who want to slow down the US rate of production.
Personally, I say bring on the electric and hydro cars, and kill the pollution. To gross you out, I was travelling around Europe recently, and a number of the tour group found that the insides of their nostrils were black -- they had black snot. I'm assuming this is the pollution.
What's wrong with electric cars? Well, apparently electric cars have been developed, a friend of mine points out, but, in one famous incident, GM crushed them, apparently on the basis of cost. Wikipedia has a few comments; no doubt if you poked around the web you'd find more. There's currently a few other electric vehicles (mainly motorcycles I think) on the market, but I guess they won't take off till people start buying them.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by Patrick
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power