RSS
Home
What if the climate scientists are right?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
It is with a mix of reluctance and no small degree of admiration I find myself moved to politely offer some constructive critique for my fellow Examiner and SF Environmental Policy writer Thomas Fuller on the issue of human induced climate change. This critique will be somewhat anecdotal and necessarily broad – climate change is a big topic and Mr. Fuller is a prolific writer -- with specific examples and narrower focus to come. But I’d like to note for the record that Mr. Fuller is by no means just another crooked arrow in a quiver full of deniers and industry mouthpieces in my eyes -- some of his work is superb. His posts are invariably well written, thought provoking, the ensuing discussions in comments are fruitful, and he’s become one of my daily reads. Nevertheless, some of the material he links to and quotes with seeming tacit approval is peppered with instances of confusion, serial misrepresentations, and in some cases outright dishonesty.
To his credit, Mr. Fuller is a self described 'lukewarmer' who accepts the evidence for some global warming at least part of which is caused by human activity. And yet many of his posts downplay that opinion, or contain content in direct conflict with it. He even routinely prefaces a post by noting he is a democrat, understandable given the fierce partisan divide expertly nurtured by the fossil fuel industry. But that same claim is appropriated by what we in the blogosphere call concern trolls: in this context, posters who appear out of nowhere and claim to be democrats or environmetnalists, right before launching a predictable list of antiscience talking points that look like they were lifted off any number of industry front websites verbatim. I work with notable climate researchers every week and I can’t think of a single that has ever prefaced a single conversation -- much less made it a practice -- with "I’m a Democrat." And for good reason: it makes no difference to the content of their research or the validity of their analysis.
In addition to the sourcing and oft used links, from time to time Mr. Fuller’s posts contain what could be perceived as vague accusations and broad sweeping statements, heartily amplified in comments. A couple of recurring generalities are (Phrasing mine) that ‘scientists claim the issue is settled’ and that ‘new data in conflict with the consensus is being suppressed or withheld.’ It's not entirely clear what 'scientists say it's settled' means. For example, the NASA Temperature Record does show that the earth’s average temperature has increased over the last one-hundred years, that increase has accelerated in the last two decades, and that greenhouses gas emissions have drastically increased during this time. So, yes, that’s settled, as in it’s empirical data, and unless considerable quantities of new data were to come to light, it’s entirely reasonable for any honest, objective reporting to reflect those facts.
Suppression, rejection, and criticism are not interchangeable phenomena. When the Bush administration censored James Hansen, appointed an unqualified Bush campaign staffer to over rule senior NASA scientists, and allowed a former oil lobbyist to edit press releases and internal reports, that might qualify as withholding information or even suppression. Excluding long debunked industry generated propaganda from an EPA report after careful review or disagreeing with someone’s blog post are a far cry from suppressing anything. Indeed, quite the opposite: peer review and selection operating on empirical data and open discussion are the foundation of both a healthy democracy and scientific rigor.
In my admittedly cursory review of Mr. Fuller's posts, it seemed to me that quotes and basic data representing the broad consensus of active climate researchers are under represented. What I did see, repeatedly and in detail, appears to favor contrarian sources that would greatly benefit from simple fact checking. Ideally, in the interests of scientific accuracy, those contrarian quotes and claims would also come with an adjunct clarification from Mr. Fuller.
One common behavior universally found in pseudoscience and conspiracy theorists is that, despite repeated attempts at correction, true believers persist. Correct a specific claim on Monday and, like a moth to a flame, the poster soon circles back to it and states it anew within hours or days as if that conversation never took place. I see little evidence Mr. Fuller makes a habit of going down that road. But I think he could do a better job of incorporating the wealth of corrections easily found on reputable websites like RealClimate, NOAA, or NASA GISS into his articles.
There is a silver lining: Through dedication and hard work, Mr. Fuller has achieved a level of popularity among some people who might otherwise never see the evidence for anthropogenic climate change (If this is by design, Mr. Fuller may well be the smartest science & policy writer I've ever seen). He’s already used that well deserved status to gently challenge his readers to think past name calling and hyperpartisan ideology. As a demonstration of Mr. Fuller’s stated interest in fostering understanding, I propose he go a step further and ask his readers, what if the climate scientists are right? What if the prediction of roughly a 3 to 4 degree Fahrenheit global delta over the next one-hundred years -- double that in cooler, temperate regions and perhaps triple nearer the poles -- holds up?
We know from recent experience that a program of massive national investment in new technology pays a handsome return, from moon rockets to microchip spin offs. If we invest in energy efficiency, alternative technologies, and green jobs, and for whatever reason global warming turns out to be much adieu about nothing, we as a nation are left with greater energy independence, whole new industries right here at home, and we deprive unpredictable or extremist foreign governments of influence and leverage. Not a bad outcome. But if climate change deniers are wrong, and we do nothing, we’re left depending on dwindling reservoirs of foreign oil, stuck with a growing, potentially catastrophic environmental disaster, and little or no immediate solutions to any of it.
Appeals to reason or evidence won’t sway professional pitchmen. They'll evade, regroup, and reread the prepared script. As the old saying goes, it's impossible to get someone to recognize something if their livelihood depends on them not recognizing it. Those blinded by partisan politics will find it difficult to avoid revealing an intellectually dishonest double standard. The same people who casually dismiss empirical evidence as never good enough and call climate scientists alarmists (Or worse), may turn on a rhetorical dime, flail around for a few insults as they pretend to read cryptic tea leaves and make wildly pessimistic predictions with utter confidenc that investing in new technology and regulating pollutants will wreck the US economy despite decades of experience to the contrary.
But the thoughtful and honest will address it squarely. I invite Mr. Fuller to take a crack at it and press his readers to follow suit. And in the spirit of fair play, I’d be willing to see about linking his response in my weekly science round up on Daily Kos, should he be inclined to write one.
Related Articles:
Comments
