By Paula Bourges-Waldegg

Disclaimer: The author is not a climate change denier, quite the contrary, so before jumping to conclusions read the article.

“Drive less, walk more”. According to the little environmentalist inside your head, that’s one of the best ways to save energy. But you know it’s exactly the opposite. You invest more time and consume more energy walking than driving. “Then, breathe less. That will significantly reduce your carbon emissions”. Your green friend’s annoying little voice is now giving you a headache. “You know your child’s future is at stake. You should take this more seriously”. You would, if you could understand what’s the point of “mitigation”? It sounds as absurd as the fat lady who orders a diet coke with her double cheeseburger because she wants to loose a hundred pounds. A problem of catastrophic consequences should be solved, not “mitigated”. And, anyway, global warming is “just a theory”, isn’t it? Sure, there’s a consensus, but scientists may suddenly change their mind… Oops, you shouldn’t have thought that. You’ve made your inner green-self really mad and now she’s accusing you of being part of a conspiracy against Mother Nature. Maybe you should walk just to get rid of her.

If you’ve ever had this type of conversation with yourself and you’re not a schizophrenic, don’t worry. You’re not alone and it’s not your fault. It’s a common symptom of global warming confusion. With so many misconceptions, intolerant attitudes and obscure interests, the arguments are hard to follow and the information difficult to understand. Climate change is a fact, but uncovering the distortions in the debate is essential to figure out what’s going on. The following are some examples of common senselessness in the discussion about climate change.

1) “Just a Theory”

A widespread incapacity to discriminate between different sources and types of information, as well as to understand simple scientific concepts, only makes things worst. For instance, many people talk about temperatures rising as “just a theory” (and by theory they mean a subjective opinion).

That the earth is warming is a fact, in other words, an objective and verifiable observation. No scientist (or reasonable person) deny this fact. What this observation means is, as any other observation in science, open to different interpretations. However, an interpretation in a scientific context is not a subjective opinion, it is an explanation that has to be supported by empirical evidence. The formal model of this explanation is called a theory. Man-made global warming is an example. And this theory is the foundation for a number of more specific hypotheses, like the supposition that global warming is responsible for current weather events such as hurricanes. Many scientists supporting the theory dispute some more specific hypotheses. That’s why at a more detailed level there’s not much consensus. However, as more data is collected the level of consensus will become more and more specific.

In the scientific literature on climate change there’re many concerns about methodological questions and calls to revise basic assumptions, but there’s virtually no research (i.e., experiments and studies) presenting results that directly challenge the key conclusions of the consensus. It could be argued that this may be a symptom of peer-pressure or bias in peer-reviewed journals, but still, concerns are not proofs and cannot be used to invalidate any evidence until formal research is conducted.

To understand these concepts and differences is quite important because, if we don’t, we will indeed become easy prays of selfish interests or we will end-up distrusting everybody, unable to make up our minds.

2) Consensus-Scientificus

It’s clear that the truth cannot be reached by consensus. Physical reality is not a socially constructed agreement. But who says that climate scientists are trying to do that? Every year the IPCC reaches an agreement about the state of knowledge in the field. This agreement may have flaws, but to argue that it is like a coup d’état against reality is ridiculous.

Equally absurd is to say that the consensus “settles all the science” or puts a final period to debate. Of course, an agreement seeks to minimize objection. But it is not a contract with the devil. Debate is precisely the mechanism through which a consensus is built and improved. The more issues that are discussed and addressed the more people that can be added to the consensus. Besides, no scientist would ever claim that a theory is definite or that any knowledge is final.

However, it is not entirely unreasonable to think that there could be some bias in the consensus on climate change. The pressure to agree is very high not only because big budgets depend on it, but mainly because without a consensus the enforcement of decisions directed towards avoiding possible extensive damage would be unfeasible.

3) Skeptic about Skeptics

To escape from faith traps there’s nothing better than becoming a cynic and question everybody, including your fellow disbelievers. However, one thing is to be a skeptic about other skeptics and another to be intolerant and hostile against anyone who expresses doubt. And that’s exactly what’s happening in the global warming debate. Skeptics are being disqualified a priori and placed under three basic categories: liars with links to oil companies, climate pseudo-scientists (alongside creationists and similar charlatans), and morons in denial (next to those who deny the holocaust or the landing on the moon).

Intolerance is pervasive at all levels of the debate. But the hostility is particularly worrying when directed towards scientists opposing the consensus. According to the National Academy of Sciences:

“The fallibility of methods is a valuable reminder of the importance of skepticism in science. Scientific knowledge and scientific methods, whether old or new, must be continually scrutinized for possible errors. Such skepticism can conflict with other important features of science, such as the need for creativity and for conviction in arguing a given position. But organized and searching skepticism as well as an openness to new ideas are essential to guard against the intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results.” (1)

It is difficult to understand why, if there’s only a minority of researchers challenging the views of the consensus, so many people bother to attack them. Perhaps, they fear that nobody will ever take action unless these scientists are condemned. But it is by debating conflicting opinions that actions can be more effective. Even if these scientists have “energy ties” their concerns may be valid. The quality of the arguments should count more than the scientist’s acquaintances and motivations.

In fact, people with intolerant attitudes (from both sides of the debate) are only hurting their cause by making it look like a religious crusade.

4) Snow, Rain or Shine or All of the Above

Before everybody starts building a bunker in their backyard, it would be important to explain how climate predictions work.

Climate is the average of weather patterns over some meaningful time period. Although the weather is not random, it can be predicted because it obeys the laws of physics, it is a chaotic complex system, which means that doing so is extremely complicated and involves high levels of uncertainty. To produce a forecast it is necessary to analyze all the possible ways the atmosphere could develop, and calculate their probability. Scientists work with many different scenarios using computer models and running them several times with slight differences in their initial conditions or their parameterizations.

But, since these predictions are based on a large number of assumptions about the economic and physical processes that will govern future events during meaningful time periods, we shouldn’t put all our money in the doomsday scenario. In fact, non-linear responses with high-consequence extreme events are usually excluded from standard climate change scenarios because of their high uncertainty.

So, more complexity means more uncertainty and absolute disaster is not an absolute guarantee. That’s a reason to stop panicking, but not to stand still, because it is precisely this uncertainty and unpredictability what makes climate change so dangerous.

5) Green Pollution

Perhaps, what most affects the credibility of global warming advocates is the communication strategy of some environmentalist groups, which seems more aimed at promoting an ideology and producing mass hysteria than at solving any problem. In fact, they make the whole thing look like a hoax.

As in other environmentalist campaigns the underlying message is that nature is good and humans are bad, that progress and technology are turning against us, and that they will destroy mankind if we don’t return to more natural and simple ways of life. To tell us our future these activists use a screenplay template that goes more or less like this: Act one, disaster is near and may already be inevitable; Act two, human greed and ignorance are to blame for all the mess; and Act three, there’s hope if we repent.

It’s a fact that the amount of waste and pollution produced by the extreme consumption in places like the United States is a huge problem. But that doesn’t mean that the only way to address it is by returning to simpler more natural lifestyles. Actually, the best solutions are more likely coming from the side of progress and technology.

But these eco-illuminati speak from their pulpit of moral superiority and want to convince us with a litany of half-truths that we should attend their call to penitence. They believe that their role in the “war against climate change” is to show us the light. Of course, needless to say, once the Truth is revealed they expect us to correct our behavior. If we don’t, it must be because we’re stupid or “enemies of the earth”.

The problem is that with this kind of communication strategy, what activists are in fact doing is alienating people from a legitimate cause and affecting the credibility of scientist and other global warming advocates.

6) The Single-Sided Coin

A recent trend in the debate is to criticize some journalists for doing their job. Their fault: giving voice to the minority who opposes the consensus. Their obsession: always wanting to present both sides of the coin in the name of objectivity. Those sneaky bastards!

Of course, there’re always journalists who manipulate the information, but to accuse those who include the views of the minority of unethical conduct is nonsense. The inclusion is not just right but essential to help people form an opinion. These are the views of scientists not charlatans. And ultimately, what really counts is the quality of the arguments. By listening to all sides, one can get a pretty good idea about whose opinions are weak and why. Thus, any twists about their relative importance come to light.

Besides, one cannot blame a journalist for seeking the minority’s view. After all, if the majority is proved wrong, the story would surely make bigger headlines. Thus, being a contrarian can become highly beneficial for the careers of heretic journalists and scientists.

7) Action Figures 

In contrast with those who diligently prepare themselves for the end of the world, and those who pretend to be doing a lot just before an election, there’re people who think that a theory needs to be “confirmed” before taking any action. Since the costs of doing something can be very high, this position is somehow understandable. In fact, it can be argued that doing too much could be worst than doing too little. Nevertheless, to sit and wait until every single bit of the science is settled is like refusing to open your umbrella until you’re completely soaked.

In the same group, there are those who believe that nothing should be done because the warming could be natural, and if so, the problem will fix itself. As if nature had the will and wisdom to solve the problems that are only problems from the perspective of humans. If earth’s climate collapses, Mother Nature won’t give a damn, mainly because “she” is just a human construct.

That’s why some actions should be taken regardless of the causes. In particular, supporting alternative technologies and research for better understanding climate change and adaptation. Because no matter how much carbon we prevent from going into the atmosphere, if the earth’s climate is so fragile, it’s going to change anyway.

Final Warning

Some experts recommend to occasionally let your inner environmentalist come back to annoy you. Potential side effects of permanent suppression include: becoming a republican, buying an Hummer, craving for whale-sushi and high blood pressure.

REFERENCES

1 “On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research”;

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine; National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1995, pg. 6.