Global Warming Skepticism
David Ginter | Dec 13, 2009 | Comments 5
Going into the Copenhagen Climate Conference it seems like everyone has something to say about global warming and/or global cooling. I closely follow the Campaign For Liberty, which is a grassroots movement towards a government that actually governs based on the Constitution and flowed out of Ron Paul’s 2008 run for the presidency. I only tell you that, so you can understand that I am probably exposed to global warming skeptics a bit more than the average person, since it seems that people of this stripe tend to consider “warming” claims as exaggerated for the sake of even more government control over our lives.
While angst against the ever-increasing government control over our individual lives may be the main reason for skepticism with warming claims, it by no means is the only one. Skeptics of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) may view the science as being too tangled up with non-governmental political reasons; for example, increased funding for some science/policy institutes, corporate interests, or a reallocation/diversion of scarce resources. Claims of AGW come attached with certain moral demands. Many people will try to use these moral demands as an excuse to exercise control over many aspects of the lives of others, hence “evidence” calling forth these moral demands is met with skepticism. If such sweeping changes in our lives are to be called for, then the scientific evidence had better be unequivocal – and the conclusions drawn by many scientists are not unequivocal.
In spite of the myriad of reasons, some of which I’ve just listed, it distresses me to see the cynical way that AGW claims are so expeditiously dismissed by so many skeptics.
For the sake of this discussion, let us make a four assumptions:
1) Let us assume that the earth is warming relative to the onset of the Industrial Age
2) Let us assume that humans do have an impact on that warming, but that it is not sufficient to warrant public hysteria
3) Let us assume that government “solutions” to problems related to climate change will result in, not solutions, but more problems – on the principle that government attempts to solve problems is like using a jackhammer to build a small birdhouse
4) Finally, let us assume that all the anomalies that are inconsistent with the above assumptions don’t present enough of a pattern to overturn them, and that these assumptions take sufficient account of both the opposing points of view as well as the tedious details involved in forming such assumptions.
Remember, these are just assumptions for the sake of a discussion and don’t necessarily have to represent either my view nor anyone reading this. I just think that it’s a pretty conservative position to take, but still respects advocates of AGW.
Well, now what? If you’ve rejected the hypothesis that man is responsible for climate change, what’s the next step? The multitude of environmental problems that we face don’t go away. Fish aren’t any less contaminated, nationwide loss of agricultural biodiversity and the resulting corrupted food chain is still something we must deal with, deforestation and the accompanying erosion of land still disrupts lives, pollution is still a problem, and the list goes on. Besides that, if you’re so sure that you can dismiss AGW claims completely, then you would deserve the Nobel Prize for Science (I say “deserve”, not that the Nobel committee would go for that sort of thing) along with scores of other honors for such a stellar demonstration of scientific accomplishment.
I also want to note that the enormous discussion that has been generated in the skeptics community over “Climate-Gate“, has rather auspiciously ignored the many instances of very substantial dishonesty on the part of climate-skeptics. I would even suggest that there are occasions where the level of dishonesty exceeds that of the CRU culprits, but it’s the political relevance of CRU’s research that has drawn a much brighter spotlight on their foul up.
Here, I must note the narrowness of my scope. I understand that there are enviro-fundamentalists who are unwilling to listen to reason and so elicit much anger and cynicism. I understand that many feel the enormous amount of resources dedicated to the various aspects of climate change would have been better spent elsewhere. I understand frustrations over hypocrisy. I understand that there are many who are skeptical of AGW claims, that are very thoughtful and have considered the things I will be discussing here and more. I don’t know how many more brackets for this piece I need to give so that you don’t misunderstand the purpose here.
My concern is that a callous treatment of AGW claims will lead to a blindness towards real and very serious environmental problems as well as undermine incentives to improve the management of our natural resources, including finding business solutions for a more sustainable tomorrow.
The ability to listen and even learn from an opposing position can act like a self-critical mirror, helping us to improve ourselves. Buddha once said that your greatest enemy is your greatest teacher. And in spite of the vehement disagreement that one may find with AGW adherents (even the painfully illogical ones), the claims those people make and the fears they express are real human concerns. They are going to seek solutions and if the “skeptical” community does not seem to be offering (or at least working towards) solutions, the desire to find legislative/governmental solutions gets fueled. Listening and learning from another position does not obligate one to actually support that position.
There are countless examples of businesses that were willing to take environmental claims seriously, invest in changing their ways (a form of self-criticism), and substantially improve the way they do business. BP committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions (especially CO2). 3 years of looking for ways to improve their environmental efficiency and making the necessary changes resulted in a $20 million investment. Within the first few years they had savings of $650 million, and in just a few years after that savings were topping $1.5 BILLION.
In his 1988 book, Taiichi Ohno, the founder of Toyota’s production system, declared a war on waste (what he called “muda“). Additionally, Toyota was willing to enter the hybrid and electric car market in the face of many uncertainties. The result is that not is Toyota weathering the current economic downturn better than other car companies (even hiring laid-off GM employees), but they have now become the world’s largest auto maker while maintaining (despite drastic improvements by GM) a 20% lower cost of production than GM.
Let’s not forget to mention the poster child of sustainable business – Ray Anderson. 15 years ago Ray Anderson read Paul Hawken’s book The Ecology of Commerce and was convicted to change his industrial ways. His carpet company, Interface, has cut emissions 82%, cut fossil fuel usage by over 60%, and diverted 74,000 tons of waste from landfills, amongst the many other noteworthy accomplishments. Their cost of production has been cut nearly in half, while sales and profits have essentially doubled.
*Note: I will devote independent articles to more fully exploring various examples of sustainable business models in the future*
Surely environmental responsibility also caries with it, social consequences. We can point to examples of civil unrest, even violence caused by some corrupted African officials that allow foreign industrial access to natural resources while denying it to their own citizens. Closer to home, we could even point to Walmart.
The perception of both sprawl, and disregard of employee and environmental health that accompanied Walmart’s drive towards a low bottom line, drew the ire of many communities. So much so that it was hurting Walmart’s ability to expand operations. Taking these concerns seriously, Walmart initiated some very impressive efforts to harness what some call an “eco-advantage”. By pursuing environmental responsibility Walmart has been able to establish itself in new markets and improve community relations.
On a more personal note, when I began a serious study of how economic and environmental concerns converge with one another, it affected my own decision-making process and it changed the way I thought about my everyday activities. Efficiency became a priority and it resulted in savings on multiple levels. I save time, save resources, and save money. I can’t quantify an accurate amount of money savings, but I would estimate between $1500 and $2000 dollars per year.
So while one may reject claims of AGW, and the proposed legislative/governmental solutions of many environmental fundamentalists, the ability to take a careful and considerate accounting of their concerns may yield some fantastic improvements in both business and social life. Such a demonstration may even create an intellectual atmosphere where AGW advocates are themselves more willing to respect the counter-evidence to their claims, and the recognition that real solutions can be achieved without government mandates may calm some of the calls for brash action. At the very least, this is a democratic-republic so the decisions each of us makes matters. Attempting to build a more constructive dialogue works towards smarter decisions being made by our citizenry.
Filed Under: The Soap Box
About the Author:
First off, I’m an AGW skeptic.
While I do believe (and there is science to prove it) that humanity does have an effect on the environment, I do not believe that global warming is one of these effects. I have not found any compelling evidence that suggests that anthropogenic CO2 has any significant, let alone measurable, effect on climate.
What I do see is natural climatic variation. Even in my relatively short lifetime, I’ve observed the climate shift slightly from cool (1960s and 70s) to warm (1980s and 90s), and apparently back to cooling (the later 2000s).
Despite our disagreement over AGW, would you believe that we actually do share a lot in common?
Mankind is *not* making the most effective use of the natural resources.
We’re burning through the fossil fuels without giving the requisite treatment to finding replacements, which we will need, possibly sooner than later.
We’re ripping down forests at a prodigious rate when there are perfectly viable alternatives to the forestry products.
We’re introducing all sorts of foreign and poisonous chemicals into the environment without giving thought to the consequences (and, no, CO2 is neither foreign nor poisonous).
Billions of our fellow human beings live in dire poverty and malnourishment.
Lomborg is right in at least once sense. Just imagine what could be achieved if all that money wasted on a non-problem would have been spent on improving the lives of those living in squalor and poverty.
Can we just drop the big lie of AGW and concentrate on those things that are real and do matter?
I think you’re more or less the kind of person I’d hope to find in skeptic community. I’m not sure I could subscribe wholly to calling AGW a big lie, but I would agree that focusing on CO2 as much as we have does distract from larger more productive goals. The only reason I can’t fully enjoin myself to the skeptic’s community, is because I think good science is skeptical by its very nature. Neither dismissing nor embracing AGW, based on the science alone, seems very skeptical to me. The politcal solutions I’m much more skeptical, even dismissive of. But I’m very appreciative of your comments because I think it is very clear-headed and honest. Usually, whoever’s not in political power tends to get the loudest. Over the 8 years of the Bush adminsitration the more liberal crowd got loud. Since Democrats have assumed so much control in Washington, the more conservative community has gotten loud. What I’m afraid of is that the rowdy opposition to what’s currently happening in D.C. (regardless of its justification) will create a mob mentality that could blind people to real problems that do exist, beyond just the political sphere, and some real solutions. Too often I get the feeling that the mob mentality is winning, that’s why I’m especially glad to hear your very insightful comments. Thank you.
David,
Thank YOU for a thoughtful response.
With regard to mob mentality; unfortunately, I think that there are two different mobs, one fanatically pro AGW, the other fanatically anti AGW. And both mobs are shouting at each other right now. This doesn’t bode well for democracy, regardless which country you live in. Only reasoned debate, based on logic and science will see it through to a reasonable conclusion. Throw in the usual corruption resulting from political collusion with big business, and you have a situation ripe for abuse.
Here’s an example of the two mobs:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4wh5o_coachs-corner-don-cherry-david-suzu_sport
Now, before decrying Don Cherry, take a look at where David Suzuki is (Vancouver, Canada). Nice moderate winter day in Vancouver. Speeches like that with backgrounds like that do not go over well for those of us suffering thru another Canadian winter; its -28C right now, headed for -32C overnight. Our provincial capitol recorded a record low last night, -48C before windchill.
(Incidentally, that variation from Vancouver to Toronto, probably 30C temp difference, is absolutely going to swamp any temperature rise that is caused by CO2.)
Sorry for the diatribe…
Any reasonable person is going to know that humans have an effect on the environment. Any reasonable person is going to want to manage humanity’s effects in a reasonable way so that resources are judiciously used and environmental perturbation is minimized.
Interestingly, I work for a company which provides software for oil&gas companies. Almost without exception, my co-workers favor the AGW arguments, but do not subscribe to the extreme measures which are being proposed to counteract AGW. It could be called rational conservation, if I had to name it.
Conservation. Shaping public and individual attitudes through education backed by sound science.
In summary, I kind of find myself attracted to the philosophy espoused by Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace. Talk about an environmental success story. Almost all of the early goals of Greenpeace ended up being enacted in some form, and we have better lives for it. But it was done thru Science and Engineering, not by turning the clocks back to the dark ages.
Yes, I plan on writing something aimed at AGW cheerleaders later this week. I probably should have even mentioned that in the piece. I’m going to try outlining what we can reasonably expect from climate changes – the winners and the losers – with an unrutted appraisal of the science and all the issues involved (business, economics, technology, food and agriculture, politics, and even things like psychology/philosophy and monetary policy). I also try to point out that people who are genuinely concerned about the environment, should be wary of the proposed governmental/legislative “fixes”, as well as the more economic fixes. Apparently they plan on fixing the environmental problems the same way they tried to fix the high costs of tuition, the way they tried to fix economic disparities, the way they tried to fix housing and access to housing (both before and after the recent crash), the way they tried to fix vehicle fuel efficiency with the cash-for-clunkers, and you get the idea.
I have not read their books, but I saw the authors of “Freakonomics” on CSPAN’s BookTV one weekend, and one of them said that they’d like to see the country wait another 2 or 3 years before making any major action on climate. That would give us more time to make a more informed decision. I thought that sounded about right. Though I’m about write a story about the increase of atmospheric CO2 as a result of slowed ocean absorption (with the necessary explanations of the scientific details) that features some of the most recent breakthroughs in removing CO2 from the atmosphere. If advancements stay on track, people need not be so frantic about CO2 because we’re so close to solving that “problem”. Though I’m not fond of the “eh, science will solve our problems” attitude. But in the case of CO2, in about 2 or 3 years it might be true.
I’ll check back in a little while for your new post. Anything that approaches the problem from a balanced perspective can only help, especially if it reaches many people.
When you write about increasing CO2 from slowed ocean absorption, remember that it is also the decreasing solubility of CO2 in seawater with increasing temperature. As the climate warms (from whatever cause…), the oceans will also warm, but at a slower rate (takes more to heat a given volume of water than the same volume of air). As the oceans warm, they exsolve the CO2, which has to go somewhere…
Bye for now.