Lomborg vs. Gore: the overly politicized science of climate change

I am an environmental skeptic. I adopted this position first after reading Michael Crichton’s State of Fear, which was a highly entertaining and controversial novel. Crichton is not a scientist, but he is science-savvy enough to have an ounce of credibility. In retrospect, I think that a big part of the facts in this book was wrong, but the main message, which is clearly explained in an appendix at the end, was very relevant.

Establishing the reality of global warming and predicting where it will take us is a matter of scientific investigation. However, the potential implications of global warming have the power to instill fear for the future of humanity. The potential dangers of global warming should be an incentive for rigorous and objective investigation. This is the only way to truly establish the situation we are in. It can put us in the most informed position to decide what to do about it.

This is what should be. What is and what should be are two completely different things. In fact, what should be is even wildly different from one person to the next. If we ever hope to reach agreement on anything, we should focus on what is.

The situation is that we have a war of opinions about global warming. At one end of the spectrum, we have the alarmist environmentalists prophetizing the impending doom of mankind. On the other end, we have the climate change deniers, for whom scientists are just a bunch of self-interested pricks with a hidden agenda. In the middle, we have people who don’t know and the people who just don’t care.

The real trouble starts when authoritative figures start claiming knowledge about the issue. Al Gore released a doomsday movie called an Inconvenient Truth in 2006. Whether or not the facts reported in the movie are right, the movie wants us to fear global warming. That is no pathway towards having a clear picture and finding a sensible course of actions.

On the other side of the debate, we have Bjorn Lomborg who just released a movie called Cool It!. He has a skeptical stance on global warming issues, arguing that the situation is a lot less dire than we have been led to believe. At first sight, that seems like a more rational point of view. However, when one starts looking more deeply into the references that Lomborg is using to make his argument, one finds that they are not supporting his claims at all. Once again, independently of him being right or not, that is no way to reach clarity and find correct solutions.

Crichton’s warning in the appendix at the end of State of Fear was about the danger of politicized science. The authority of science is a political power that cannot be abused. When studies are funded in order to demonstrate a point that will be used to further one’s agenda, the integrity of science is deeply undermined. The public may first believe these studies, but controversy over them will soon arise, since the scientific community never let these studies go without scrutiny. The public soon finds out that they are being misled by somebody, and they can’t see clearly past the controversy. Trust in the scientific endeavor weakens, and trust is hard to get back once lost.

This is the situation I find myself into when I contemplate the climate change controversy. However, the major part of the misleading is being done by public figures like Gore or Lomborg. They both have credibility in the public’s eye, and they contradict each other. As for the scientific effort in climate change, I still believe it mostly shows uncompromised integrity, especially recently. The picture we get from it is mostly empty of claims about what we should do, and filled with “we don’t know”.

Here is a short list of five articles concerning global warming that appeared in the last month:

  • Complex interplays between sea-ice cover, winds and air temperature makes global warming consistent with colder winters in the northern hemisphere (link to article).
  • A comprehensive review of last four decades of literature on temperature studies reveal that warming of the troposphere is ongoing, and the observations have been modeled accurately. There is still disagreement regarding predictions (link to article).
  • Micro-organisms responsible for degrading carbon stored in the ground are much more active during winter than previously thought (link to article).
  • Ice-sheets are predicted to respond quicker to global warming when the heat transfer of liquid water is taken into account (link to article).
  • Small chaotic changes are responsible for dramatic episodes of climate change, as opposed to well-identifiable causes (link to article).

Every month, some new effect is reported that is having implications on global warming models. We are not close to an answer as to whether global warming will cause our modern world to go awry or not, but we are making progress. Lomborg and Gore are both very hasty on jumping to conclusions. I can understand the sense of urgency, but funding should go to the climate science community instead of going into potentially pointless policies. I am not saying that since we don’t know, doing nothing is the best course of action. I don’t think that putting more effort in getting past “we don’t know” is doing nothing.

The climate change controversy is the toughest controversy out there. I describe myself as an environmental skeptic simply because of the highly politicized aspect of the issue, and I question anyone who plunge into the debate with an air of conviction. It is safe to be sure that global warming is happening. It is still unsafe to be sure of where it will go and what we should do about it.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Politics, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Lomborg vs. Gore: the overly politicized science of climate change

  1. Ian says:

    Just discovered your blog. Cool thoughts (pun intended).

    On the AGW controversy, I’m equally inclined to toss out Gore and Lomberg as passionate non-scientists, but less willing to discard the mountain of work compiled by both the IPCC and NASA (two institutions that are dedicated to doing good science, however both are inevitably influenced by politics). The evidence (to me) is overwhelming that (a) the Earth is heating, (b) that the increase in heating is increasing (accelerating) and (c) that human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels, is a contributor to that heating.

    The latter points are contentious in the media (as all bad science journalism tries to give ‘equal time’ or see ‘both sides’), and corporate interests in perpetuating doubt and promoting delay tactics, are hampering the debate (moving the goal posts from ‘how do we fix the problem’ to ‘is there really a problem?’).

    One of the best analyses I’ve seen lays out the problem in terms of game theory.

    If we reduce it to “climate change is our fault” versus “not our fault” and then must choose “action” or “inaction” (obviously it’s all much more complex), then we can layout a grid. If it’s our fault and we choose inaction, the potential harm is high with environmental damage, if we go with action, it will cost money, but stave off harm so we win there. If it’s not our fault and we don’t act we’re also neutral or good, but if we act we spend money (although potentially create jobs and move from an oil-based industry which is the basis for much of the Islamic power in the Middle East). This is probably better summarized by this video but basically it’s more worth it to invest in greener technology and energy sources then to gamble on our future.

  2. emitc2h says:

    I can’t agree with you more. Even Bill O’Reilly would agree 😛 He said on Real Time with Bill Maher not too long ago that going for more efficient and less polluting technologies should be done for its own sake, since the benefits for our way of life are rather obvious. We should not wait for an incentive of impending doom to motivate progress in this direction.

    There are however actions to counteract global warming that have been proposed that are highly questionable on their long-term effects as well. If these ideas get political momentum before the spectrum of their consequences is worked out, it is no better. I am thinking of technologies to actively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for example, as opposed to reducing our emissions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s