Global Warming, 3
It's easy to politicize this issue and make it a victim of the liberal/conservative partisan divide. This is unfortunate but probably unavoidable, since responding to global warming requires political action. The issue itself seems fundamentally scientific in nature ("just the facts please, ma'am"), but since a comprehensive grasp of relevant facts appears to be beyond individual "thoughtful citizens," taking refuge in comfortable ideologies often becomes the natural fall-back position. So here are two non-empirical but also non-ideological questions that I think we can tackle at this level:
1. The Precautionary Principle (PP): I think it ought to govern our approach to the political and social response to global warming--given the level of our uncertainty. But here is what Crichton says about it in the Author's Message at the end of State of Fear: "The PP, properly applied, forbids the PP. It is self-contradictory. The PP therefore cannot be spoken of in terms that are too harsh." But there's no further explanation, and I have been unable to find any elaboration of his view on this in searches of his speeches and websites. What does he see that I don't?
2. I don't know whether Geoff sympathizes with right-wing conservatives who despise Gore and his G.W. message, but he speaks eloquently about some of their concerns (see his comments on earlier posts). They seem more fearful of government encroachment on the economy than they do of global warming itself--as though it were simply a front for political power-grabbing by Gore and his fellow-travelers. Yet nothing on Gore's "to do" list even remotely hints at this. Is it just a political knee-jerk reaction on the part of the right? If he hadn't had anything to do with An Inconvenient Truth, would they have been more inclined to accept its thesis?
posted by Peter Van Dusen @ 8:29 PM
7 Comments:
The problem with Gore's take on things is that he offers nothing fundamentally new, or likely to be truly effective over the long term. The things on his "to do list" have been around for quite a while, and most have actually been getting implemented, slowly but surely, for at least a couple of decades now. The problem lies with his contention that we now have an impending crisis. That tone makes "An Inconvenient Truth" a call to immediate action, presumably involving doing something in excess of what we have been doing for years now. So what does he want us to do differently? We have been progressing, slowly but surely towards less emissions overall (not just CO2), as it has become more economically feasible for us, as individuals, to do so. I see no reason to think this will change in the near future. This is being done because it's the "right thing to do", not because we believe we are in a crisis. If we believe we are in a CO2 induced crisis, we should expect to see new laws and policies intended to reduce CO2 emissions being enacted. But we have no evidence that the effect of combustion-related CO2 is a significant factor in the long term cycling of the planet's temperature. Our model tells us how it may affect the planet's temperature, but does not account for other variables, for example solar cycles, that may dwarf the CO2 effect into insignificance. Further, I don't think the effect of our puny efforts to reduce CO2 emissions can even counteract the effect of the exponential increase in human population, partiuclarly in third world countries, another variable not taken into account by the "Radiative Forcing Model." If we could halve our CO2 emissions in 50 years, but we more than double our population in the same time, the net effect is still increasing CO2 and presumably more GW. If there is really a crisis, why isn't Gore calling for a big "negative population growth" initiative? That's really the only effective way to reduce our human footprint in the long term (by which I mean the next 50-100 years). The basic problem is that Gore et al seem to have the cojones to say we have an impending crisis, but not to say how we can effectively address it. My suspicion is that any truly effective means of addressing the issue would simply be too unpopular to be embraced by the public, and Gore et al are simply unwilling to take the heat, so they content themselves with crying, "The sky is falling!"
If you're getting too hot because your house is on fire, you can't just fiddle with the thermostat setting, you have to put the fire out!
1. Geoff, you have said many times that “we have no evidence that CO2 is a significant factor...” The IPCC and SciAm article say otherwise. Please show why we should be skeptical of the article. Until this is accomplished, I see no credibility for your own claim on this.
2. The SciAm article (p. 66) says that the effect of solar cycles is only 1/10 that of greenhouse gases—a far cry from “dwarfing” the CO2 effect into insignicance.” Perhaps this is a legitimate point of controversy we should look into further. Please post the link for that research here, if you can.
3. On what basis do you say that population growth is not accounted for in the “radiative forcing” models? What reason is there to believe scientists responsible for the research on which the IPCC report was based have not taken population growth into account? How could they not?
4. Your frequent use of locutions like “that’s the only effective way...” indicates a potential flaw in your reasoning. The very nature of the global warming problem—I’m assuming for now that there is one—requires multi-faceted, simultaneous attacks on multiple fronts. There can’t possibly be only one answer, or one best approach. It’s a red herring to accuse Gore & co. of insincerity because they’re not emphasizing this particular aspect of the problem.
Seems to me, that by definition, there can ONLY be one BEST approach, right??! All the others are less than the BEST.
On the topic of population growth, why do you think this factor WAS considered? No one mentioned it as far as I saw. It seems clear from a purely mathematical POV, that even halving our emissions (which is more than anyone has seriously proposed we could do) would be irrelevant if we double our population. The increase in population seems to be greatest (fastest too) in the very third world countries that are least concerned with reducing CO2 emissions. Actually, I don't think we will actually double our populatin in 50 years, but I was pointing ut that the rapidly increasing population factor may well overwhelm any relatively minor efforts we may take to reduce CO2 emissions in th US.
Yes, you caught me in a terminological slip--I take it back and withdraw the term "best"! Even if there were a "best" approach, our current state of knowledge prevents us from knowing what it would be. "Best," therefore to attack the problem on all possible fronts, I'd say!
I don't know that population WAS considered. I'm only saying it would be nothing short of fantastic if it had NOT been considered. (And Gore mentions it as one of the factors causing the rapid growth of CO2 in the first place.) If it occurs to you and me as an important factor to think about, how could it not occur also to the hundreds (thousands?) of scientists who make it their business to think about these things?
A recent study concluded that solar activity in the last decade should have resulted in a cooler, not a warmer Earth. Also, Goeff your position seems to be self-contradictory. There are no doubt several factors involved (population density for example) but addresing any of them (and I contend that the consensus view of the scientific community is very clearly that C02 levels is one such factor) is desirable.
Pardon me here, but your view that requlation occurs "because it is the right thing to do" is laughable.
The energy-industry has run a well funded campaign of mis-information on this topic in this country, but look to the rest of the world. The jury is in for just about every country that has studied this issue.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home