Dateline Rutland: Climate Change: Hype or Planetary Crisis? (comment)
October 25th, 2007
Opinion, Vermont, climate change, global warming
Dateline Rutland: Climate Change: Hype or Planetary Crisis?
Comment:
Science needs skeptics to challenge the majority view, but for now the overwhelming majority of qualified experts believe that greenhouse gasses released by human activity are at least largely the cause of global warming. Even the most outspoken skeptic will concede that greenhouse gasses must be at least partially at fault.
If there are skeptics, it is because the science (of climate change) is not unequivocal. (There are a few true skeptics about the earth orbiting the sun…. yet…) The statement “the overwhelming majority of qualified (?; what makes one qualified?) experts believe…” speaks for itself. And I’m not sure that it makes sense to say a skeptic (outspoken or otherwise) would concede to anything. A skeptic by definition challenges belief. For example, from my understanding (by no means infallible) water vapor is a greenhouse gas with significant influence on the thermodynamic balance of the atmosphere. It’s precise role in “global warming” is a bit of a challenge; what I may believe about it is irrelevant.
Challenging the majority view – if you will - might suggest that the majority view is the correct view. Those few meek unpatriotic souls who challenged the majority view - that we should invade Iraq – may or may not be vindicated… but they sure look prescient on this side of Baghdad. This is rhetoric pure and simple. Sorry.
And more rhetoric: So if human activity is at least partially to blame, does it not make sense that we should consider reducing our emissions?
First, this question makes a few wholly unfounded assumptions; do we know as a scientifically established fact that reducing emissions would reduce global warming? If so, when? By how much? Many of the “qualified experts” suggest a tipping point (due to carbon dioxide emissions) past which positive feedback accelerates global warming – to some unspecified endpoint. If that is true, then reducing our emissions is waste of time. And since I am loathe to suggest something out of thin air, this was discussed in the Sessions opinion (05CV302)- and in many other global warming articles.
And, more significantly equating human activity with emissions is simple; self-evident. So self-evident and logical that you are asking if its makes sense to “consider reducing human activity”. But that is a much more difficult question, yet is it not the same question?
Everywhere this has been investigated, opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have been found and in many cases the measures create an economic benefit, not a burden.
My grasp of economics is at times rather tenuous so if I’ve overlooked something here, I apologize. But if there is an economic benefit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, what’s the problem? Or rather why haven’t they been reduced already? Please cite the investigations wherever they may be.
After all, saving energy usually saves money. If we can reduce emissions through cost-neutral measures what rational argument is there not to do so?
Energy costs money, so saving energy saves money – a tautology if ever there was one.
And finally, if (IF) we can reduce emissions through cost-neutral measures – there is NO rational argument not to do so.
Jeff, I’m not an activist fighting global warming. You can’t fight global warming any more than you can fight terror. But as a practical matter, the reduction of carbon emissions in an intractable problem. Solutions, if they are to be found, lay elsewhere. But there is much to agree with in your essay.
Comments