The most vocal objector to the idea that global warming is real - and that such global warming is caused by man - followed a statement that he was a skeptic, not a cynic, and that his anti-global warming stance was not a religous one, with the following argument:
My objection to the global warming hysteria is partially economic and partially science. It has to do with a belief that the science is not, as Al Gore says, "a settled issue". And the belief that the global science henny pennys are underestimating the economic impact of the "fix".
So just to lay this out in straightforward and simple terms what should be obvious, it's time to look at reality.
Preliminarily, it's an interesting question whether the viewpoint expressed above constitutes skepticism or cynicism, but I don't think that is the correct, or even relevant, distinction. Science requires skepticism.
But the argument disguises as skepticism (which is essential) the fact that global warming "skeptics" just don't want to believe something that is not convenient. The science behind global warming itself is pretty solid (you can test conclusively how much CO2 and methane is pumped into the atmosphere, and you know the chemical reactions it has once it is there); rather, it's the impacts of the global warming (flooding Manhattan, etc.) that are unclear.
So the intended objection is against the theories with respect to the impacts of global warming on the planet, which are necessarily a prediction, with models and variables and unknowns, which cannot be certain until tested (testing is the key element of science; you cannot prove anything without testing). And until testing is done, global warming "skeptics" will deny that the predicted outcomes will come to pass (the "belief" that the science is not settled, which isn't science, it's faith).
The fundamental problem is that you cannot test the theories as to the impacts of global warming until the results actually happen in the real world - we don't have a lab planet to tinker with. Because of faith in a belief that global warming is not a problem, global warming "skeptics" will not believe in the consequences until they actually come to pass.
That's neither cynicism nor skepticism. It may, however, be recklessness (as defined by Websters: "careless of consequences"). Recklessness is fine if the consequences impact nobody other than the reckless person; it's not quite so where the consequences are global. I don't have much concern for the drunk that drives off a cliff, but we make drunk driving illegal so that the drunk doesn't plow into a bus full of children.
The Ostrich lacks the appropriate perspective on whether the sky is actually falling to know if Henny Penny is right or not.
As for the swipe at Al Gore, none of this is specifically an endorsement of the title of Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth. If we're trying to be accurate, it should have been called something like "An Unacceptable Risk". But those Hollywood folks are better at marketing than I am. And sounding an alarm to wake people up to potential consequences, particularly in the face of great risk, is not necessarily in and of itself a bad thing.
It's all balancing of risks. I actually do respect (but strongly disagree with) the perspective that those risks may balance in the other direction, but the problem with the argument of the "skeptics" comes in their denial of the real science part in order to reach their conclusions, unless the "skeptics" can't face up to the actual science because the balancing of the risks cannot work in their favor.
Better to be up front about it. I see the risk of inaction as much greater than the "skeptics," particularly where the "skeptics" would refuse to acknowledge the risk until the risk becomes a reality.
The acceleration of global warming is directly tied to the junk we pump into the atmosphere. Actually facing up to that would have long-term beneficial direct economic effects on the economy despite some up-front costs in moving our energy economy into the 21st century.
Today, more than ever, the costs of a failure to shift our energy economy have become depressingly obvious, with the looming collapse of an American auto industry that found itself unwilling or incapable of shifting in any meaningful way away from a gasoline-based economy engine into more environmentally-friendly and energy-efficient economy.
The costs of ignoring the issue and not doing anything - both direct costs due to ongoing dependence on foreign oil and other limited resources, which will not, despite the red-in-the-face arguments of global warming "skeptics" to the contrary, be impacted in any significant way by drilling, baby, drilling, off the coast and in national parks, and indirect costs as a result of the impact of changed weather patterns on coastlines, farming, healthcare costs, etc. - are, in the not-too-distant future, much greater than the costs of taking action, of building a greener economy and a healthier planet.
The time is now.
No comments:
Post a Comment