I found the image above by looking for the word “dumbfounded” on Flickr. The global warming discussion of the past few months has left me feeling a bit like this image, which is by TheZillaOphyShrew.
It has been a surprising couple of months in the world of science reporting – at least on the Internet – from the time of the February 2007 report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announcement until the most recent announcement, today.
I knew not everyone believed global warming was real. I knew that. But, in the past months, while reading comments on this website and others, I have felt dumbfounded – astonished, amazed – by the strength of public reaction in the U.S. against the idea that global warming is real and caused by humans.
A year ago, it seemed that global warming naysayers – in the media, among the public, in science itself – were denying that there _was_ a scientific consensus on global warming. And of course some are still denying this.
But, now, some of the same people who claimed there was no consensus speak with disdain because a consensus exists. Now global warming naysayers speak of brave “pioneers” who “refuse to jump on the global warming bandwagon.” We hear claims of a global warming “conspiracy” or “swindle” or “hoax.” We hear that scientists who speak of human-caused global warming have an ulterior motive: they are “trying to get grant money.” Those who are skeptical are “like Galileo, who also went against the scientific establishment of his day.” We also hear that the United Nations is a socialist organization, bent on world domination. And we hear that Al Gore is evil incarnate.
It’s the strength of these assertions that is so surprising. How can the global warming naysayers feel so confident that they are right? After all, the stakes are very high.
And, as I take the time to follow link after link provided by the naysayers, it’s the weakness of their arguments – and the lack of understanding about science – and the refusal to look at the “about” pages of websites that make outrageous, unsubstantiated claims (many are clearly put together by non-scientists) – that cause me to shake my head, in sadness, again and again.
I’ve watched the global warming story unfold throughout my 30-year career in science journalism. For decades, scientists tried to be careful and conservative about this issue. Too careful and too conservative, I see now.
One useful thing we did this week was look at the subject of climate change on Wikipedia. It was useful because the editors at Wikipedia work very hard to maintain what they call NPOV: a neutral point of view. Here are two excellent sources from Wikipedia, for anyone wishing to understand the global warming controversy:
Scientific opinion on climate change
Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
The titles of those articles suggest what I’ve observed, as a person whose job it is to watch science: that the scientific majority believes that global warming is both real and, at least in part, caused by humans.
It’s very interesting to go to the “discussion” pages on either of these Wikipedia articles and read the back-and-forth talk between editors about all facets of what is being presented. If you do that, you’ll see that Wikipedia’s editors are struggling as hard as the rest of us (well, most of the rest of us) to present the climate change story fairly, yet accurately, from a scientific perspective.
At EarthSky, we are trying to stay open. We’re listening to you all. It’s just that there is overwhelming evidence, at this point, for the reality of human-caused global warming.
One of Wikipedia’s editors, Stephan Schulz, was kind enough to share a link with me to an excellent summing up of the scientific consensus on climate change, by Naomi Oreskes, from 2004. See: Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.
I hope you’ll look over these links.
What else is there to say? Only that I wish those who do not believe in human-caused global warming would stop to consider one thing.
It might be true.
It might be that we humans are playing a role in changing Earth’s climate.
And, if so, there might – still – be something we can do about it.
Humans have already shown that they can cool the earth during the global cooling period 1945-1975 which warming-theory explains through pollution of the upper atmosphere. The focus on humans as cause of gw originates from the assertion that we can only do something about the problem if we are the cause of it (see your last sentence). However, we can and will do something about gw regardless of its causes if and when necessary.
Thanks Deborah. YOU are a wonder.
All we have to do is look around to realize how much there is to do. And, of course, the formidable challenges before us can STILL be addressed and overcome, as you know. But, first, the threats to life as we know and the integrity of Earth have to be acknowledged. That is the step the leaders of my not-so-great generation are loathe to take.
The many minions of the masters of the universe who shouting out now, who are adamantly insisting the ‘MASTERS’ have THE answers, are no help to anyone, not even themselves. The difficulty all of us face, it seems to me, is that those who are speaking with such “strength in their assertions,” as you put it, {the ones who have repeatedly referred to reports of good science over more than 30 years as the work of “shrill alarmists” and a “cacaphony of screamers”} hold the lion’s share of the world’s wealth and, consequently, the political power. The modern organization of the global economy has served some of us extremely well. Millions of us are rich (i.e., million“aires”) while literally billions of our less fortunate brothers and sisters are poor (i.e., “heirs” to extreme poverty). Please be assured of one thing, “the only game in town,” as the makers of the current economic scheme call it, is a game in which millions cannot lose and billions cannot win because the game is a pyramid scheme. Simply follow the money. The pyramidal symbol of this colossal political economy is printed on every one dollar bill(US).
Everyone knows there are more millionaires in the world now than there were 50 years ago and, as well, we know there are now billions of people on Earth who are destitute.
Granted, in such circumstances more people get to eat. Yes, definitely, more people, in terms of absolute numbers, are well-fed now than were well-fed 50 years ago, numbering in the many millions. This is a very good thing. The problem we face is that billions of newborns have joined the human community in that same time frame. Many too many millions, now numbering in the billions, of these unfortunate people have been starving during during the last 50 years. That is to say, while millions of people in our nation have grown obese, billions of people in poor countries have gone hungry.
None of this is rocket science. It is simply that we are enjoined from talking openly about the predicament in which humanity now surely appears to find itself in these early years of Century XXI.
Thankfully, we can apprehend favorable signs of change in the offing alongside evidence of global challenges already visible on the far horizon.
Sincerely,
Steve
The sad fact is that the very advances in technology that have given us the ability to probe the planets, and our past — the same technologies that enable us to sound the alarm on climate change — have also provided the public with a bewildering array of information as well as disinformation. With so many gadgets at our disposal, so many interruptions via cell phones, emails and a wide variety of other 21st Century “advances,” it’s a wonder that anyone can analyze any problem. So, IMHO, I think that most people aren’t willing to take the time to look at Global Warming critically (in the scientific sense) and because it has negative consequences, they prefer to deny its existence.
We are not going to change the advance of technology (after all, you wouldn’t be reading this without the Internet), so scientists and educators have to find a more effective way to get the word out. The big challenge for the immediate future is how to reinstall reason in the human mind.
My impression is that the voices of naysayers is louder on the internet and in chat forums than it is in our culture in general. What are the latest polls about American’s belief or disbelief in human-caused global warming?
Given the implications of global warming it should create a bit of “cognitive dissonance” among a lot of Americans. Especially the ones who don’t want to look in the mirror, at how their way of life is potentially destroying their grandchildren’s future. Who wants to be responsible for that?
So denial should be expected among a significant part of the population. But, my guess is that those in denial are increasingly the minority.
The irony, of course, is that they have the self-identity of being “critical, hard-nosed, free thinkers”, but they mostly parrot the party-line fed to them by mercenary apologists for business-as-usual.
Orion, according a poll by the Pew Research Center in January 2007, fewer than half of all Americans believed in human-caused climate change. Pew reports:
Of course, that was before the February 2007 announcement by the IPCC that global warming is both real, and, at least in some part, caused by humans. And it was before today’s IPCC announcement.
Responding to Larry (comment #3), I wish to allude to another scientific inquiry that once generated much public debate: the Copernican idea that the Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun. Although the controversy has long passed, does the public at large – even today – really understand why astronomers believe in the Copernican system?
What do you mean Bruce?
I think it’s quite a stretch for any skeptics of global warming to claim Galileo as one of their own, asserting that “Galileo . . . went against the scientific establishment of his day.” I think, rather, Galileo’s conflict was with the Church heirarchy. Be that as it may, obstructionism is as alive and well today as it was in Galileo’s time.
I long for more honest inquiry and dialogue. I’d love for the global warming skeptics to tell me WHY the science that links human-induced CO2 emissions to global warming is flawed. Instead, I read – over and over again – on how global warming is a hoax perpetuated by socialists trying to destroy capitalism. Isn’t it a bit much to ask me to dismiss any and all scientists who link human behavior with global warming, because you say it’s a conspiracy?
When the Copernican system was at the center of controversy, the observations of Mars by Tycho Brahe, and then the interpretation of his data by Johannes Kepler finally solved the puzzle of planetary motion. (Copernicus proposed a revolving Earth, because it better explained the observed motion of the planets.) May it be said that Tycho Brahe didn’t believe in the Copernican system, but that Johannes Kepler did. Regardless, it was their collaboration that elevated humanity’s understanding of planetary motion beyond that of Copernicus himself.
How about another collaboration, so we can better understand climate change?
Sincerely,
Bruce McClure
I have to admit … I laughed when I first heard people comparing global warming skeptics to Galileo (that seeker of truth). But now I’m not laughing. The misinformation about this subject – and the level of emotion surrounding it – is disturbing.
Like you, Bruce, I long for a more honest exchange. I would like for one of the people who say that global warming is a “hoax” and that scientists who suggest the world is warming are “bent on destroying capitalism” to tell me why they think that. WHY would scientists want to destroy capitalism?
Deborah
Deborah,
In comment #5, I’m comparing the Copernican controversy in the past with the global warming debate in our own time. In both instances, the possibility that the emerging notion could be true – or accepted as true – was greatly upsetting to a good number of people. Back then, science was in conflict with religious prejudice; today, the science of climate change conflicts with political ideology. In both instances, the change of thought (and circumstance) was and is threatening to a way of life, and to the interests of the rich and powerful.
Today, nobody really worries or disputes about the Earth rotating on its axis and revolving around the sun. Even though people are no longer threatened by the Copernican idea, and probably accept it 100%, I’m not so sure a high percentage of the public really knows the reasons behind its acceptance. In other words, how many people, if transported back to Galileo’s day, would be able to explain to them why we believe in the Copernican system nowadays?
I guess I’m wondering if the bewildering array of information (and disinformation) is any more prevalent today than in Galileo’s time, and if people today are any less or any more committed to looking at the issue critically than in times past. Even though Copernicus (and other astronomers) had very good reasons for believing that the Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun, that bit of insight couldn’t be proven till nearly two centuries after Copernicus’ death. However, I don’t know if humanity has the luxury of waiting that long for an absolute proof to human-induced climate change, as it might prove to be our undoing.
Bruce
Anyone who knows science or follows science also knows that science, any science, is not based on consensus. Science is based on fact. Majority opinion does not rule. If a “majority” of sceintists one day tell us that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east does that make it true? Consensus is for politics which is what this issue has mostly become, especially by its “advocates.” That’s why people are so confused. It’s thanks to political demagogues like Al Gore. He has no interest whatsoever in finding the “facts.” He’s only interested in advancing his own political agenda which should immediately discredit him. Where is his sceince degree? Equating skeptics with Holocaust deniers is a political statement not a scientific one. Or that scientists who dare disagree are accused of being paid off by sinister “big oil.” Mandating that school children view Mr. Gore’s propaganda film and not balancing it with another viewpoint. I wonder why Ms. Byrd doesn’t mention those in her critique of the debate. Could she also be an “advocate”? Interesting for someone who talks about finding “consensus” and who is allegedly striving for “neutrality.” Sounds like she has her mind all made up without all the facts being in yet. So much for scientific “debate.” Making up your mind on an issue ahead of time and then cherry picking the facts that support your position while discarding those that don’t is something a partisan politician does not a scientist. That’s why I’m a skeptic and always will be until I see real concrete facts as anyone else who allegedly claims to be interested in the science of the issue should be doing. The bottom line is scientific consensus does not equal scientific fact. It’s the people who find comfort in consensus who are arguing from a position of weakness. It is, therefore, not an argument in favor of or opposed to something. It’s just another tool used to intimidate people who disagree or to squelch “debate.”
Chris,
What’s your take on the science behind the ice core studies? A rsponse would be appreciated.
Thank you.
Bruce McClure
Chris,
My apologies. Here’s a second try to directing you to the link. As far as I can tell, the consensus is among scientists, not necessarily the general public.
Bruce
Bruce, What your point about GHG at a 650,000 year high? The global mean temperature surely is not at a 650,000 year high. In fact, many scientists point out the fact that the CO2 levels from ice core records follow temperature rise, not the other way around. By the way, how many SUV’s are causing global warming on Mars?
Realist,
You mean I can burn fossil feuls with impunity, because human-induced CO2 emissions are not at all contributing to global warming? Instead, it’s naturally-occurring global warming that raises the CO2 levels?
As to the global warming on Mars, I have to be quite honest with you. I wasn’t even aware of it. Perhaps the global warming on Mars (if indeed, Mars is warming – I’m taking your word on that) is due to the fact that the eccentricity of its orbit is increasing.
Your flippant comment on Mars, however, is hardly a convincing argument that human-induced CO2 emissions here on Earth are not responsible for global warming.
Bruce
Here’s an article about warming on Mars: Scientists note wind-whipped warming of ice-cold Mars
This article (from the San Francisco Chronicle, but you can find lots of other mentions of this study out there) describes a recent study in the science journal Nature by a planetary geologist named Lori Fenton. The article says:
But the cause is not in any way related to the greenhouse gases that are currently causing earthly warming, according to the scientific consensus. On Mars, the cause has to do with the martian “albedo,” which is a technical word for the amount of sunlight that Mars is reflecting from its surface. Apparently, the martian albedo has changed slightly over the last couple of decades. The article says:
The article also says:
In other words, there appears to be a natural mechanism causing warming on Mars at this time.
Natural mechanisms can also cause warming on Earth. Everyone agrees on this.
But, according to the scientific consensus of today, there is also a human mechanism causing Earth’s temperature to rise. And by the way, the evidence for this human-caused earthly warming (confirmed by hundreds of scientists around the world) is vastly stronger than the evidence for the natural warming on Mars (based on one study by one scientist).
Deborah
Deborah,
Thank you for the link to the Mars’ global warming article, and for your comments. And “Realist,” glad you introduced me to the topic.
Bruce
You’re welcome.
As I said in the original post that started this thread, the weakness of the scientific arguments put forth by global warming naysayers – and the lack of understanding about science – is what’s making me so sad here.
Deborah
Dear Deborah and Bruce,
Your comments are revealing and, ironically, a source in hope in the darkness before the dawn.
The masters of the universe, through their minions in the mass media and elsewhere in positions of political power worldwide, have used every imaginable tactic and strategy to undermine the work of well-intentioned scientists, the priniciples and practices of democracy and the health and wellbeing of humanity. In the years since the onset of the Industrial Revolution between 1750 and now, worshippers of wealth and power have had their time at bat, to use a term from the American pastime, baseball.
Now, perhaps we are going to begin to see great hitters from science, democracy and humanity come to bat and score runs.
We have learned from Dr. Dennis Meadows, other great scientists, and the leadership of the Club of Rome that “Nature always bats last.” In this turn at bat, we can hope that the hitters of humanity, democracy and science will succeed late in the game and defeat the masters of the universe, unbridled capitalism and a patently unsustainable “political economy ideology” before Nature takes the last at bat and decides the contest.
Sincerely,
Steve
Well said, Steve. That’s exactly what worries me about the “debate” that global warming naysayers insist exists on this subject. Nature will indeed have the last bat.
In the scientific community, the debate about global warming has been going on for decades. As best as it can be (for science, like all human endeavors, is an imperfect process), the scientific debate is now settled: humans are affecting climate.
And yet there is this raging – very illogical – uproar going on in the mind of some members of the public. They will not hear what science has, for these past decades, explored and tried to understand.
If you can’t believe the scientists to tell you what they’ve observed about processes happening on the Earth today, who can you believe? Political writers? Novelists like Michael Crichton? Websites that don’t list their credentials on their “about” pages? Don’t people realize that anyone can say anything on the internet? Anyone can create a web page.
In this thread and others, some have accused Earth & Sky of being an “advocate” in the global warming “debate.” But, if we are advocates, then we’re advocates for the actual science on this subject. In science, although not everyone agrees, this debate is settled.
And if the scientific majority changes its mind – through continued exploration, through measurements, through the best technologies we have (including computer models), through the process of peer review – Earth & Sky will also change its story.
Deborah
Dear Deborah,
It seems to we have not reached the end of anything. New and better (i.e., more accurate) scientific evidence will lead to “changes of mind,” I expect. We are involved in a process. Despite what we often hear, no one has THE answers. Thankfully, we have God’s gift of good science as a sure guide to human action in the world. And we also are blessed with another gift of God, democracy. If humanity holds fast to the evolution of science and worldwide movement toward the incorporation of democratic principles and practices, then the future of our children and coming generations will be assured. That is what I believe. Of course, my point of view may be completely misguided. That possibility cannot be ruled out.
In following your example, I believe it is incumbent upon us to make good use of the best available scientific research. I have learned over many months now of your commitment to good science. More could not be expected of us, and, yet, to do less could be tragic.
As you put it so well, a point will inevitably come when “Earth & Sky will also change its story.” Is this not forever true because life itself is, in reality, based in change? A challenge is presented to humanity by the magical and wishful thinking of some people that leads them to quickly grasp and then relentlessly hold onto the status quo, based in our time upon a patently unsustainable, static human construction called the global economy.
Perhaps change based upon good science is in the offing.
Thanks so much to each and every member of the Earth & Sky community,
Steve
To realist,
When you were saying in comment #11 that “CO2 levels from ice core records follow temperature rise,” is this what you’re referring to?
Bruce
Dear Bruce,
Thanks for your many valued contributions to these discussions. Every day is looking brighter, thanks to you, Deborah and the many friends of Earth & Sky, because the great E & S community’s recognition of the formidable global challenges before us make clear that we can work together, take the measure the challenges, and respond ably by accepting, addressing and overcoming them, whatsoever they may be.
Always,
Steve
Steve,
Perhaps I have some good news for you. My wife Alice recently bought the book “Deep Economy” by Bill McKibben, after hearing a radio interview with the author. She said how refreshing and upbeat it was to listen to him, as he suggested many little steps we can all take to make a big and positive change to the environment we are now despoiling.
I plan on reading it soon!
Bruce
I’m a huge admirer of Bill McKibben. Here’s a link to an article of his on this website (a reprint from the New York Review of books): Warning on Warming.
And here’s another article by McKibben in Mother Jones: Reversal of Fortune.
And here’s a link to his new book: New Economy.
Dear Bruce and Deborah,
Thanks to references to the work of Bill McKibben.
By loudly and clearly raising their voices, he and many other people are beginning the process of establishing in public discourse three seminal priorities of the E & S Community: dedication to science, humanity and the Earth.
Always,
Steve
Sorry Ms. Byrd the debate isn’t “settled” whatever that means. Who are you? What are your scientific credentials? You’re just a journalist from what i can see and can also post and advocate anything you want on the internet just like the so-called “naysayers.” I find it interesting that a non-scientist like yourself declares this scientific debate settled for all time. Science is not based on majority opinion its based on fact. It is not “illogical” to demand that the scientific community provide me and others in the general public with irrefutable evidence. They’re the ones positing the theory. The burden of proof is on them not the skeptics. I highly recommend the following column for you and all the rest who think “scientific consensus” has “settled” this issue.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/galileo_denied_consensus.html
To Chris (comment #20),
Maybe you’re putting the cart before the horse. I seriously doubt that all these scientists got together and said, “Hey guys. Let’s not do any research at all. Let’s take a poll instead.” The scientific consensus reflects the current thinking based upon the latest scientific data, and this evidence strongly suggests that human activity is responsible – at least in part – for global warming.
I read the article, whereby certain naysayers are trying to claim Galileo as one of their own. You want “irrefutable evidence,” you say? Let it be said that Galileo never had “irrefutable evidence” that the Earth revolved around the sun. Neither did Copernicus. Neither did Kepler. Neither did Newton. They all had very good reasons, though, for believing in Earthly motion. Yet, there was no “irrefutable proof” of the “fact” until the aberration of starlight was discovered (quite by accident, no less) in 1728. It may interest you to know that Galileo died in 1642 and Isaac Newton died in 1727.
I think skepticism is fine, as long as it means honest inquiry. In some instances, I’m afraid the so-called skeptism expressed by some people is really more reactionary than scientific in nature. Scientists, to be sure, probably have an imperfect understanding of climate change. Hopefully, it can refined with the input of more data and further research.
My two cents.
Bruce McClure
Hello Chris. You’re right. I shouldn’t have used the word “settled.” I should have said simply that the majority of scientists – at this time – believe that global warming is real and caused (at least in part) by humans. I believe you and I can both agree on that statement.
In science, as we both know, the majority can be wrong. Time will tell.
I looked at the article you suggested. It’s an opinion piece, much as my original post above is an opinion piece. Perhaps Schmitt’s opinion matches your own. All well and good. We are all entitled to our opinions.
It’s my opinion that if the majority of scientists on Earth today believe that global warming is real and caused by humans, we should at least give them the courtesy of considering that what they are saying might be true … not rail against them just because they are the majority.
Thank you for commenting on our website.
Deborah
Dear Chris,
Please try to understand that my generation of elders may have let a lot people down, I suppose, including you. The certainty provided by “irrefutable evidence,” as you put it, is beyond our grasp. But that may not be the main problem we present to ourselves, peers and children now.
In my humble opinion, it is hubris and overweening ambition of us elders that has lead us to accept as real one sadly mistaken belief: human beings “are almost mature” and now can ignore, indefinitely sidestep, or else defy the practical requriements of biophysical reality. Despite all the illusory thinking we have shared and heard to contrary in the course of a lifetime, human beings can neither PERPETUALLY increase per capita of the Earth’s limited resources nor ENDLESSLY EXPAND human enterprise on the small finite planet we inhabit. At the current scale and anticipated growth rate of the global economy, please consider that the frangible ecosystems and available natural resources provided by the Earth for human benefit cannot much longer sustain rampant, untethered economic globalization?
Ready or not, like it or not, it appears the established scientific consensus on global climate change makes clear to us something apparently unforeseen and distinctly unwelcome: that more of the same ol’ business-as-usual unbridled economic growth, unrestrained per human resource consumption, and unregulated human propagation could become patently unsustainable on a planet the size of Earth, even in the first half of Century XXI.
According to the scientific consensus on global climate change, the world we inhabit, I suppose, does not work in all the ways we wish it did. That is to say, a finite world cannot sustain an infinite increase in human consumption, production OR propagation activities.
Sincerely,
Steve
Where did all the comments go?
Hi Alice! Welcome. Glad you're here. We're still working on getting the comments imported over from the old site. Hopefully they'll return soon …
Last time I checked the satillites that measure ocean sea level and temperature said all is normal!