Bad News, But Will Anybody Listen? May 18, 2010Posted by Dwight Furrow in Dwight Furrow's Posts, politics.
Tags: climate change deniers, Paul Krugman
1 comment so far
NASA-GISS data show that the past 12 months were the hottest 12-month period on record. In the chart below, Paul Krugman plots the difference over the past 25 years from the average temperatures over the period from 1951-80 (measured in in hundredths of a degree centigrade):
Climate-change deniers have been, for years, arguing that the data shows the earth is in fact cooling. But the upward trend in this chart shows something quite different.
As Krugman says:
So much for the “global cooling” talking point. What I’m wondering is what excuse the deniers will come up with.
They could argue that temperatures fluctuate, that one shouldn’t make too much of a particular peak — which is actually true. But that would get them in trouble, since the whole global cooling thing has been about taking the 1998 peak — visible in the chart — plus a bit of bad data to claim, literally, that up is down. Any statistical fix, like looking at multi-year averages, would just confirm that the temperature trend is up.
Now, I’m sure that the climate deniers will find a way to ignore the latest facts. But I’m not sure what that way will be.
For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com
Climate Change Deniers April 7, 2009Posted by Dwight Furrow in Current Events, Dwight Furrow's Posts, Ethics, Science.
Tags: climate change, climate change deniers, climate change sceptics, environmental ethics, ethics and morality, Freeman Dyson, global warming, Philosophy, politics
1 comment so far
Cross-posted at Reviving the Left
I’m curious. What makes people cavalier about making the earth uninhabitable?
Freeman Dyson is without question a brilliant physicist (although not a climate scientist). But, as this recent NY Times article reminds us, he continues to claim that we ought not do much about global warming?
The consensus among climate scientists that anthropogenic climate change is real is substantial. I understand that there are some scientists who question the models on which projections of global warming are based. But how confident can we be in these dissenting opinions given the substantial consensus? Scientific consensus is sometimes mistaken, but it isn’t typically mistaken, and is seldom entirely wrong about very settled beliefs. Getting on board with the deniers seems a risky bet. It is possible that our climate models are wrong but surely the probability is relatively low.
I understand that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the effects of climate change. How large the climatic effects will be, what parts of the world will be most affected, etc. cannot be known at this point, although we can make some highly educated guesses. But why would it be rational for any country to gamble that they won’t be affected given the potential for catastrophic outcomes?
And there is justifiable controversy over how much the mitigation of the effects of climate change will cost and who will bear these costs. There are clearly opportunity costs to spending lots of resources on mitigating climate change—the money could be used to alleviate poverty, for instance. But most current models of the effects of climate change predict significant disruption in agriculture and habitation patterns that promise substantially more misery than the disadvantaged experience today. If we ignore climate change, we are taking great risks with their lives.
Moreover, there is credible evidence that new green technologies will be a powerful stimulus to economic growth both in developed and underdeveloped countries.
My problem with global warming deniers is not merely that they are opposing the scientific consensus. Science often advances when qualified scientists challenge the consensus. There will always be scientists who devote their lives to showing an hypothesis to be false, if they can. That is their job. My problem is with the judgment that we ought to base policy on this aspiration to be iconoclastic.
Risking lives on the basis of a belief one knows to be probably false is a case of bad moral judgment. This is true even if one has doubts about the climate models. The issue is not so much a matter of science but of morality. It is morally wrong to risk great harm based on a hypothesis that is likely to be false.
Like Wall St. bankers, climate change deniers think they can make risky bets and someone else will pick up the tab.