On the climate change debate
Reading this article about climate change consensus unraveling and recalling the snafu of hacked climate e-mails makes me — and hopefully a lot of people — sit back and think. I’m pretty committed to having a small carbon footprint and living in an ecologically and environmentally conservative manner. Recently I’ve gotten pretty excited about tiny houses and composting toilets, but the annoying, pragmatic part of my personality — the one that always butts heads with my idealism and is often aided and abetted by my cynicism – makes me question if I’m just some loony, leftie wannabe-hippie who sways with the gust captured by the nearest wind turbine.
Well, that may be, but I don’t think so. I’m beginning to see climate science not as a science with a defined (or definable) truth, but rather as a developing and evolving truth, much like a wiki. To take that metaphor further, imagine that the “climate change” Wikipedia article is just beginning to be written, and there are an awful lot of smart people involved. But, like all people, they have biases, beliefs, and politics that come into play, even though most strive to leave them at the door. The point we’re at is the nasty editing wars where accusations are hurled here and there, where people feel the dichotomous pull to one side or the other, even though there is a large and poorly defined area in the middle. There is not Truth, not yet, even though we’re working on it. Some of us feel we can dimly see where it’s leading, and others boldly plunge down that path, blind to obstacles and Reason and so forth. Others dig in their heels and refuse to budge. You see where this mangled metaphor is headed.
Remember when J Harlen Bretz thought the Pacific Northwest had been formed by catastrophic floods and everyone laughed at him? Truth wins out, if given time and energy. We’re just not to the point where we can quite see what that will be.
I feel that there is conclusive evidence that human activity has had a negative impact on the environment, and that we need to change our individual and collective behavior if we want to avoid greater catastrophe. Incidents like the one in this article, or the earlier hacked e-mails the article also mentioned, have given unfortunate fuel to the “skeptics,” who fail to notice that “The flawed estimate raises more questions about the panel’s vetting procedures than it does about the melting of Himalayan glaciers, which most scientists believe is a major problem,” or that “The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.”
You’re absolutely right that we don’t have all the information yet and that the picture is still evolving. What I can’t countenance is the idea that because we’re not certain of all the precise details, or that because human mistakes were made, we’re entitled to sit back and do nothing. Composting toilets, tiny houses, and other thoughtful and responsible decisions strike me as much preferable (though I may be as much of a leftie loony as you!).
[Reply]
Chelsey replied:
January 22nd, 2010 at 14:45
Yes, and don’t misinterpret me — I, too, believe global warming is caused by humans. But I also believe that we are in the information-gathering phase, and that there *may* be other elements at work. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work to reduce our emissions, of course! To me it just means we should be careful about how we gather and use information, and be dogged in our goal for accuracy.
[Reply]