Bush vs. Bears
I recently saw a talk by Andrew E. Dessler, author of The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change. Dessler discusses the arguments for and against taking actions to reduce green house gas emissions. He provides evidence showing that most people who value their credibility will not argue against the proven facts that the earth is warming and that some of the change is human-induced. Instead they will argue that, given the uncertainty of the situation, the nation cannot reasonably take actions to prevent emissions.
One of the best arguments cites The One Percent Doctrine, a book by Ron Suskind named for Dick Cheney’s declaration that “We have to deal with this new type of threat in a way we haven’t yet defined. . . . With a low-probability, high-impact event like this . . . If there’s a one percent chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.” Therefore, if there is a one-percent chance of a nuclear attack, we should take action.
So, what are the chances that the global climate is warming? The chances (discussed by Dessler) are far greater, perhaps 20 to 50 percent. The dangers of global warming have been shown: wildfires, droughts, extreme weather events. Why, then, is the US government not taking action to prevent these disasters?
One problem is that the public doesn’t feel a sense of urgency to prevent global warming. People are more concerned with the immediate dangers of other threats, such as avian flu or terrorism. Someone suggested that the dead polar bear should be the mascot to get the public thinking about the dangers of global warming. It seems that Greenpeace has. Perhaps it would be more effective if it went something like this:
This polar bear died from:
a) terrorism
b) avian flu
c) gay marriage
d) flag burning
e) global warming
It might be more accurate to say that the polar bear died from poor leadership by our short-sighted politicians.
greengun said,
July 31, 2006 @ 1:55 pm
I think alot of the global warming denial comes from people who don’t want to change their lifestyles. Because once you start looking at what we’d have to change in order for CO2 levels to significantly go down, alot of people don’t want to do it. Plus, they point out countries like China & India, and how they aren’t bothering to tackle the problem, so they say, “why should we bother changing if they aren’t? They’re going to be a bigger problem!”
It’s all ridiculous, but I hear it. Amongst the scientists that I work with, there is actually some debate on the Global Warming issue. The atmospheric chemists here are adament that global warming is human induced and will cause problems. The astronomy guy we have doesn’t think that we’ll be able to wreck the atmosphere any worse than the planet can handle. Then we have two conservative PhD students who think that, “Yes, we cause global warming, but more CO2 isn’t all that bad for the environment, and the planet probably has built in mechanisms to counter problems.”
monkey said,
July 31, 2006 @ 2:28 pm
I agree - most people are unwilling to make changes for our the sake of our planet if it’s inconvenient to them. That is our current reality. That’s why I think that a major problem is poor leadership. If we had leaders who were willing to see decades into the future, then they might actually make changes now to mitigate the problem.
As you mention, the scientific uncertainty behind global warming is not that the planet is warming, it is: 1) how much the planet is warming, 2) how much of the warming is human induced, and 3) how bad the effects will be.
The argument that I made earlier, is that, according to the “Cheney doctrine”, if there is a 1% chance that there is a threat, then we should take action. I think that even the conservative PhD students that you refer to would not be willing to say that they are more than 99% certain that there will not be problems with excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.