The Setup:
The post obviously touched a few nerves because there were more responses than to this post than any other on this page. There were arguments on both sides of the climate change "debate". They included some putting forward the view that action needed to be taken sooner rather than later and others quoting "proof" that there was no problem, using the usual talking points one hears from that side of the fence.
Without carefully reading all the preceding posts, I waded into the fray. Within a very short time, I was accused of "ad hominem" attacks, not valuing the opinions of dissenting voices just because they weren't "experts" in climate science, and so on.
What's an "Ad Hominem"?
It's short for "argumentum ad hominem", Latin for "to the man" or "against the man". Basically, it is what you call an argument that criticizes the person rather than the substance of that person's arguments.
I've taken the trouble to read almost ALL of the comments made up to November 6th. That's approximately 310+ comments since October 24th. That's a very impressive number and speaks to the concern about this topic, no matter what side of the argument you are on.
As I read though the posts I was somewhat surprised to see very little bad temper, no foul language despite some passionate support for various points of view. What I also did not see, were any of these so-called "ad hominem" comments, other than one from the person who accused me of using them. One example? " Like the anti-fur lobbyist who indulges in McDonald's hamburgers." The point being....?
Noting that someone is a journalist, not a climate scientist, is useful in determining if someone's opinions are worth paying any attention to. And, yes, some opinions are more valuable than others. Pointing to funding from oil companies raises the issue of impartiality. If one can't bring these issues up in a debate then you are seriously limiting one's ability to assess the validity of any information contained in the debate.
What are the usual arguments against Human-Caused Climate Change?
One response to the "article" provided the following questions, taken from "15 Questions About Why Climate Change is a Complete Hoax". I've taken short amount of time to find answers to some of the questions but I'm aware that these questions are the same questions the anti-ACC supporters always ask. Answers can be found by anyone if they want to bother looking. Also keep in mind that obviously not everything is known. The climate is a complex system. But so is nuclear physics, causes and treatment of cancer, advanced computer systems.... Do we dismiss everything that we don't immediately understand because it's too complex?
1.Why has there been no global warming for 17 years? The short answer is that there has been. The oceans are warming and becoming more acidic as they absorb CO2 as well as heat. The global temperature is more than mean atmospheric temperature. One thing to note is that ice everywhere has been melting at an alarming (ie: much faster than expected) rate. If I recall my physics correctly, it takes about 80 times as much energy to melt a gram of ice as it does to raise a gram of liquid water by one degree. I guess we can wait until most of the ice has melted and see what happens, but the current expectation is that air and water temperatures will climb rapidly. This, by the way, is an experiment that you can do in your kitchen with some ice water and a thermometer.
2.Why have 97% of the climate models failed to foresee this? As mentioned below, models give us trends and the current models have been, if anything, conservative and have underestimated what's happened. See here.
3.Why has Antarctic sea ice been well above normal for more than 2 years? I'll respond with my own question: Why has Arctic sea ice been decreasing steadily, year after year? And why have huge portions of the Antarctic Ice Shelf been breaking off into the ocean? More information can be found here. There is also evidence that melting land ice is making some parts of the Antarctic Ocean fresher (ie: less salty). Fresh water freezes at a higher temperature than salt water.
4.Why are northern hemispheric winters getting colder? As the Arctic gets warmer, the jet stream which generates much of our weather patterns changes and causes weather systems to stall and it has been giving some parts of North America colder winters. But recall that weather is not climate. Changes to the jet stream and unusual weather are thought to be just some of the effects of climate change.
5.What makes the present warm period any different from that of the Medieval warm period? For one, the current warming period has happened faster and the temperatures are higher. I don't want to rely on Wikipedia for information in all cases, but some answers can be found here. Note also that the MWP wasn't especially warm globally, while the current warming trend is. And, yes, grapes still grow in the UK, just as they did back then.
6.Why is it that CO² has been suddenly assumed to be the major climate factor and the rest like the sun and oceans are dismissed? Carbon Dioxide has not been "suddenly" assumed to be anything of the kind. Knowledge of CO2 as a greenhouse gas goes back decades. As for the sun, yes it is true that solar cycles can influence conditions on earth, but in recent decades, solar activity has been decreasing or remained steady while the earth's temperature has been increasing. Since these two effects are diverging, the sun can be dismissed as a cause. The ocean is just another part of the planet that will warm up. And it has been. I'm not aware that the ocean hasn't been included in discussions of the climate. Obviously it has an effect. You've heard of "el Nino" and "el Nina"? These are ocean effects that have a big influence on climate...well, certainly at least weather, in a given year.
7.If there is consensus on manmade climate change, then why is there so much controversy over it? The consensus is in the findings and reports of research from climate scientists. The "controversy" is fueled by a combination of: 1) the media who strive for "balance" even if the dissenting voices have no special knowledge, 2) vested interests such as the oil, gas and coal industry, similar to the tobacco industry who blocked action on cigarettes years ago, 3) fundamentalist religious groups who really do feel God will provide and that it is our right to "have dominion over the earth...", 4) politicians who have no understanding of science even though they are given the duty to make policy about scientific issues, 5) people who don't like change, even if it means giving up our wasteful ways with energy and other resources. The controversy is NOT from the scientists who have done the research and have seen the results.
8.Do you think that it’s not necessary to have sceptics [sic] in order for science to progress? It's always important to have skeptics. It's even better if those skeptics can test theories to see if they are true. Skepticism has to be more than just opinions, though. Get evidence. As in one famous case some years ago about something called "Cold Fusion", not one single scientist was able to reproduce the claims of the two who first published their theory. When you can't reproduce someone's results, then pretty soon those claims will be discarded. The Greenhouse effect is a theory that had it's origins over 100 years ago. The first predictions of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) were made in 1896. Information since then has only strengthened this theory. There is lots of debate in the scientific community, but it's not about the basic concept. Global warming is real. Human activity and our production of CO2 from fossil fuels is the cause. The climate is changing and there will be consequences. How much, how bad? These are good questions but the warning is clear.
9.If human contribution to CO² in the atmosphere is 3%, how much should we attribute mother nature’s 97% to any ‘change’ of climate? There is a thing called the Carbon Cycle. Carbon Dioxide is given off by many natural processes and is taken up by other natural processes. Generally, this is in balance, in equilibrium. It has been reported that about 40-50% of the CO2 from human activities is being absorbed by the Carbon Cycle. The problem is with the remaining CO2 that natural systems can't take up. This s why CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing. A chart to help understanding can be found here.
10.By how much will the temperature of the globe change if we commit to a 20% reduction of world emissions by 2050? How long do you have to wait? How long can all of us wait? By 2050 I'll be long gone, but my grandchildren (and yours) will still be here. What kind of a world are you prepared to leave them? Personally, I feel that 20% by 2050 will be far too little and far too late, but that's just my opinion.
11.By how much will a doubling of CO² increase global temperature? Models don't give us temperatures, they can only give us trends. If anything, the models have underestimated what's actually happened.
12.Why has the rate of sea level rise decelerated since 2004, despite rising CO²? Who says it has? Measurements and extrapolations from measurements seem to show continued sea level rise with the expectation of this continuing at an increasing rate. There is much discussion about how to measure this, even within scientific circles. It's a complicated and difficult matter. However, let's see what happens with coastal Florida, many Pacific islands, more storms like Hurricane Sandy.... Personally, I'm glad I live far inland.
13.Why has global ocean heat content, 0-700 metres, failed to rise since 2004? Ocean currents, perhaps, that have taken warmer water lower in the water column? We know such current exist. However, according to this information, the ocean,
everywhere, is warming. As well, as mentioned earlier, lots of energy is going into melting ice with little to show for increasing temperature just yet. It's a physical reality.
14.What evidence would falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming? Like anything else. Find and present evidence that it isn't happening. Climate change skeptics have lots of opinions and many questions but they continue to fail in supplying evidence. Where are the scientific reports? I think an interesting question would be to ask those skeptics the following: "What observations or evidence would you consider "proof" that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels?"
.
What about those 700+ Scientists....?
There are various "lists" of scientists who, it is said, don't support or don't accept the evidence of human-caused climate change. When you're trying to verify the validity of anything that's said about anything, one good place to start is to see who these people are. Where do they work? What are their credentials on the topic in question? Do they do active research and have they published articles about their research? Most of the names can be found to get answers to these questions. This can lead to a list such as the following, taken from the pages of Skeptical Science.
- Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris
- J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting;
- Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University;
- Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society;
- Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences;
- William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton;
- Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.;
- William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology;
- Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT;
- James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University;
- Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences;
- Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne;
- Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator;
- Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem;
- Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service;
- Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Note that other such lists from the anti-ACC groups include names of people who have since claimed that their conclusions have been misrepresented or who were not asked if they could be included in such lists. In short, these lists aren't always all they are claimed to be.red - no climate science publications, member of at least one climate denialist group - GWPF (advisory board), George C. Marshall Institute (board of directors or roundtable speakers), Australian Climate Science Coalition (advisory panel), Heartland Institute (board of directors), and/or ExxonMobilblue - published climate science researchorange - both a member of a climate denialist group and has published climate science researchblack - no climate science publications or climate denialist group membership
If you want lists, though, 225 National Academy of Scientists signed their own letter urging action on climate change.
And the source of this article?
The Sunday Express is a child publication of the Daily Express in the UK. This is a tabloid journal that has a history of publishing sensationalist conspiracy plots about Princess Diana's death and silly stories about nearly everything else. The top "meteorologist" (Coleman) claimed as the author of this report is a journalist. This doesn't make him an expert in anything scientific which would be fine if he was actually referencing research articles that had something to support his claim. But he doesn't.
IF there were real, verifiable, testable, researched results that "proved" (a better term, and more scientific, would be "supported") the author's claims, then it would be published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals, not the pages of a tabloid that makes its money with claims about conspiracy theories, movie-star couples and alien landings on earth.
Yes, there is a difference between material published in reputable journals and the pages of a tabloid created entirely to titillate customers at the checkout line in a supermarket.
We've seen it before
The ozone hole, tobacco and cancer, AIDS denial, the anti-vaccine lobby, the evil spirit belief in the causes of disease, claims that accepting evolution means we must believe humans have come from monkeys...., we've see it all before. Many of the comments in this lengthy post were familiar. Some examples:
Various posts criticize the whole ACC discussion as being politically motivated. My take is that the greenhouse effect was proposed over 100 years ago. Climate change as an important concern was put forward several decades ago. It was only after the denial industry jumped into the fray that things got political. Before that, it was an issue based almost entirely on the scientific facts as they appeared. If anything is political, it's because the fossil fuel industry and their gullible adherents have insisted on making it one.
"Politics is driving science..." Generally, it's curiosity that drives science, certainly basic research, at least. I'd agree that politics often drives policy decisions and, especially with our current government, those politics are driven by ideology, NOT science. This will be to our country's detriment, in the long term. In a more perfect world, science would drive politics (and policy). There are many related examples such as building massive prisons when the crime rate is falling. Cutting the long-form census. It's become much worse under the current Harper government.
Someone made the comment that ACC is "just a theory". I've heard this many, many times before and it's a real shame that our society's poor understanding of science promotes this quite incorrect statement. It implies that a theory is just a guess. Nothing could be further from the truth. Theories are explanations based on evidence. Theories have changed and will change if and when new evidence appears, but they are not guesses.
"The climate is always changing". This isn't proof that climate change isn't happening and what the statement evades is the speed at which the current climate is changing. The current change may be 10x faster than any that's occurred before. The speed of change and the magnitude of that change, neither of which have happened in human history, are the real concerns. Claiming that just because something happened before without humans is not proof that humans aren't the cause of the change now.
"10,000 Scientists that support....doesn't mean it's true.." Remember, once again, that it's not the scientists but the data and evidence they've found. But let's say, just for fun, that the numbers of scientists did matter. How many would be enough? How many would convince a climate change skeptic? Would 97% be enough?
Although I'm sure that many climate-change skeptics don't subscribe to evangelical views on human's "right" to do as we wish with the planet, it's instructive to note that the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming has as one of it's authors one Ross McKitrick, a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute. This article has to be read to be believed. It comes right out of the Middle Ages, perhaps from that Medieval warming period that climate change skeptics are fond of bringing up. Climate change skepticism sure brings together some strange bedfellows.
"But China and India aren't doing anything..." The USA puts out more CO2 than China and India combined, by a large margin. And consider that the USA does this with 300+million people compared to China and India's 2+billion. It would seem to make sense that the fattest man at the table start to find solutions before we expect poorer nations to do much.
"Polar bears can learn to adapt..." I'm sure humans will make a good attempt at adapting, but I'm also pretty sure many animal species won't be able to in the time available. Insects might do well - they seem able to survive anything - but many of the others? Not so sure about that. Besides, isn't making that statement conceding that rapid climate change IS happening and that we'll just have to sacrifice the poor, pesky polar bears?
"The IPCC and the UN...completely discredited". There are many reasons to be unhappy with the UN although many of its agencies do great work. This is not really the point. The IPCC is summarizing the available science. The fossil fuel industry and climate change skeptics just don't like what the scientific research has discovered, and it's not new evidence, either.
So there's nothing new in these claims from climate change skeptics. You can find a discussion about every other possible position being taken by these skeptics in the series How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic.
So....
Obviously there are differences of opinion on climate change (or not climate change). Thing is, it's not opinions that really matter, but the evidence. It's entirely possible that even with compelling evidence humans will decide to do nothing, or rely on geoengineering to solve the problem in 50 or 100 years. Time will tell. But misrepresenting the science isn't going to be helpful.
No comments:
Post a Comment