A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

climate

Don't Say the C Words

by 18 Comments

While weather disasters have always plagued humanity, there has been a clear recent uptick in such events. Naturally, the greater scope of these disasters is due partially to the human population being larger than ever and occupying more land—especially in areas prone to such events. That said, events such as the floods in Louisiana and the steady inundation of the sea in many places (such as Miami) are indications of a real change.

Nearly every climate scientist accepts that climate change is occurring and that human activity has had an influence. Given the historic record, it would be irrational to deny that the climate changes and few claim that it does not. The battle, then, is over the cause of climate change. Unfortunately for addressing the impact of climate change, it was brilliantly changed from a scientific issue into a political one. Making it into a partisan issue had the usual impact on group psychology: it became a matter of political identity, with people developing a profound emotional commitment to climate change denial. When denying climate change became a matter of group identity, it became almost impossible for reason to change minds—in the face of overwhelming evidence, people merely double down, deny the evidence, and craft narratives about how scientists are biased and environmentalists hate corporations and jobs.

To be fair, some of those who accept climate change do so out of political identity as well—they are not moved by the science, but by their group identity. They just happen to be right, albeit for the wrong reasons.

Not being an expert on climate change, I follow the rational approach to any issue that requires expertise to settle: I go with the majority view of the qualified experts. As such, I accept that climate change is real and humans play a role. If the majority shifted, I would accept that view—after all, the history of science includes numerous shifts.

If this matter were a purely abstract debate, then there would be no real worry. However, the impact of the changing climate is already doing considerable harm and the evidence suggests that it will continue to get worse unless steps are taken to address it. Unfortunately, as noted above, climate is now a political issue with deeply entrenched interest groups and strong emotional commitments. In some places, such as Florida, there is considerable political pressure to not even use the words “climate change.” The problem is, of course, that not using the words does not make the problems go away. Miami will slowly vanish into the ocean, even if people refuse to say “climate change.”

As a philosopher, I do believe in reason. However, I am also a practical person and know that reason is the weakest form of persuasion. Because of the entrenchment over climate change, trying to use reason and evidence to change minds would be a fool’s errand. As such, I suggest a purely pragmatic solution: stop using the C words (“climate change”) when trying to influence public policy, at least in cases in which there is strong ideological resistance. Using those words will simply evoke an emotional response and create strong resistance to whatever might be proposed, however reasonable.

As an alternative, the approach should be to focus on the specific threats and these should be cast in terms of risks to the economy and, perhaps, the lives and well-being of voters and consumers. There should be no mention of man-made climate change and no proposals to change behavior to counter man-made climate change. In short, the proposals must focus solely on mitigating the damage of weather events, with due care taken to present the notion that these events “just happen” and are “natural” with no connection to human activity.

It might be objected that this would be analogous to trying to combat the Zika virus by dealing only with the effects while refusing to say “virus” and not proposing any efforts to address the cause. This is certainly a reasonable point. However, if there was a powerful political movement that refused to accept the existence of viruses and citizens emotionally devoted to virus denial, then trying to persuade them to deal with the virus would be a nigh-impossible task. If they did accept the existence of the effects, then they could be enlisted to assist in addressing them. While this approach would hardly be optimal, it would be better to have their cooperation in mitigating the consequences rather than facing their opposition.

It might also be objected that I am deluded by my own ideological views and have been misled by the conspiracy of scientists and liberals who are in the pocket of Big Environment. Since I rather enjoy a good conspiracy theory, I certainly admit that it could be the case that the noble fossil fuel companies and those they pay are right about climate change and the scientists are either villains or dupes. If so, then not talking about climate change would be the correct approach—just as not talking about climate demons is the correct approach (because there are no such things). Since the weather events are really occurring, then addressing them would still be reasonable. So, regardless of whether climate change is real or not, my approach seems to be a sound one: avoid the resistance of climate change deniers by not using the C words; but enlist them into addressing those perfectly natural severe weather events that will be occurring with increasing regularity.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Talking Points & Climate Change

by 20 Comments

English: Animated global map of monthly long t...
English: Animated global map of monthly long term mean surface air temperature (Mollweide projection). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

While science and philosophy are supposed to be about determining the nature of reality, politics is often aimed at creating perceptions that are alleged to be reality. This is why it is generally wiser to accept claims supported by science and reason over claims “supported” by ideology and interest.

 

The matter of climate change is a matter of both science (since the climate is an objective feature of reality) and politics (since perception of reality can be shaped by rhetoric and ideology). Ideally, the facts of climate change would be left to science and sorting out how to address it via policy would fall, in part, to the politicians. Unfortunately, politicians and other non-scientists have taken it on themselves to make claims about the science, usually in the form of unsupported talking points.

 

On the conservative side, there has been a general shifting in the talking points. Originally, there was one main talking point: there is no climate change and the scientists are wrong. This point was often supported by alleging that the scientists were motivated by ideology to lie about the climate. In contrast, those whose profits could be impacted if climate change was real were taken as objective sources.

 

In the face of mounting evidence and shifting public opinion, this talking point became the claim that while climate change is occurring, it is not caused by humans. This then shifted to the claim that climate change is caused by humans, but there is nothing we can (or should) do now.

 

In response to the latest study, certain Republicans have embraced three talking points. These points do seem to concede that climate change is occurring and that humans are responsible. These points do have a foundation that can be regarded as rational and each will be considered in turn.

 

One talking point is that the scientists are exaggerating the impact of climate change and that it will not be as bad as they claim. This does rest on a reasonable concern about any prediction: how accurate is the prediction? In the case of a scientific prediction based on data and models, the reasonable inquiry would focus on the accuracy of the data and how well the models serve as models of the actual world. To use an analogy, the reliability of predictions about the impact of a crash on a vehicle based on a computer model would hinge on the accuracy of the data and the model and both could be reasonable points of inquiry.

 

Since the climate scientists have the data and models used to make the predications, to properly dispute the predictions would require showing problems with either the data or the models (or both). Simply saying they are wrong would not suffice—what is needed is clear evidence that the data or models (or both) are defective in ways that would show the predictions are excessive in terms of the predicted impact.

 

One indirect way to do this would be to find clear evidence that the scientists are intentionally exaggerating. However, if the scientists are exaggerating, then this would be provable by examining the data and plugging it into an accurate model. That is, the scientific method should be able to be employed to show the scientists are wrong.

 

In some cases people attempt to argue that the scientists are exaggerating because of some nefarious motivation—a liberal agenda, a hatred of oil companies, a desire for fame or some other wickedness. However, even if it could be shown that the scientists have a nefarious motivation, it does not follow that the predictions are wrong. After all, to dismiss a claim because of an alleged defect in the person making the claim is a fallacy. Being suspicious because of a possible nefarious motive can be reasonable, though. So, for example, the fact that the fossil fuel companies have a great deal at stake here does not prove that their claims about climate change are wrong. But the fact that they have considerable incentive to deny certain claims does provide grounds for suspicion regarding their objectivity (and hence credibility).  Naturally, if one is willing to suspect that there is a global conspiracy of scientists, then one should surely be willing to consider that fossil fuel companies and their fellows might be influenced by their financial interests.

 

One could, of course, hold that the scientists are exaggerating for noble reasons—that is, they are claiming it is worse than it will be in order to get people to take action. To use an analogy, parents sometimes exaggerate the possible harms of something to try to persuade their children not to try it. While this is nicer than ascribing nefarious motives to scientists, it is still not evidence against their claims. Also, even if the scientists are exaggerating, there is still the question about how bad things really would be—they might still be quite bad.

 

Naturally, if an objective and properly conducted study can be presented that shows the predictions are in error, then that is the study that I would accept. However, I am still waiting for such a study.

 

The second talking point is that the laws being proposed will not solve the problems. Interestingly, this certainly seems to concede that climate change will cause problems. This point does have a reasonable foundation in that it would be unreasonable to pass laws aimed at climate change that are ineffective in addressing the problems.

 

While crafting the laws is a matter of politics, sorting out whether such proposals would be effective does seem to fall in the domain of science. For example, if a law proposes to cut carbon emissions, there is a legitimate question as to whether or not that would have a meaningful impact on the problem of climate change. Showing this would require having data, models and so on—merely saying that the laws will not work is obviously not enough.

 

Now, if the laws will not work, then the people who confidently make that claim should be equally confident in providing evidence for their claim. It seems reasonable to expect that such evidence be provided and that it be suitable in nature (that is, based in properly gathered data, examined by impartial scientists and so on).

 

The third talking point is that the proposals to address climate change will wreck the American economy. As with the other points, this does have a rational basis—after all, it is sensible to consider the impact on the economy.

 

One way to approach this is on utilitarian grounds: that we can accept X environmental harms (such as coastal flooding) in return for Y (jobs and profits generated by fossil fuels). Assuming that one is a utilitarian of the proper sort and that one accepts this value calculation, then one can accept that enduring such harms could be worth the advantages. However, it is well worth noting that as usual, the costs will seem to fall heavily on those who are not profiting. For example, the flooding of Miami and New York will not have a huge impact on fossil fuel company profits (although they will lose some customers).

 

Making the decisions about this should involve openly considering the nature of the costs and benefits as well as who will be hurt and who will benefit. Vague claims about damaging the economy do not allow us to make a proper moral and practical assessment of whether the approach will be correct or not. It might turn out that staying the course is the better option—but this needs to be determined with an open and honest assessment. However, there is a long history of this not occurring—so I am not optimistic about this occurring.

 

It is also worth considering that addressing climate change could be good for the economy. After all, preparing coastal towns and cities for the (allegedly) rising waters could be a huge and profitable industry creating many jobs. Developing alternative energy sources could also be profitable as could developing new crops able to handle the new conditions. There could be a whole new economy created, perhaps one that might rival more traditional economic sectors and newer ones, such as the internet economy. If companies with well-funded armies of lobbyists got into the climate change countering business, I suspect that a different tune would be playing.

 

To close, the three talking points do raise questions that need to be answered:

 

  • Is climate change going to be as bad as it is claimed?
  • What laws (if any) could effectively and properly address climate change?
  • What would be the cost of addressing climate change and who would bear the cost?

 

 

My Amazon Author Page

 

My Paizo Page

 

My DriveThru RPG Page

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Where’s Al?

by Leave a Comment

The general consensus is that global warming is occurring and human activities are a significant causal factor in this matter. However, as with all hypotheses, it is always wise to consider the matter critically and rationally. To forestall any overly emotional reactions, I want to make it clear that I am not denying the consensus put forth by scientists. I am not a climate scientist and hence am not qualified to properly assess the technical aspects of the matter. However, my area of authority is philosophy and that includes expertise in critical thinking and causal reasoning. Hence, I am qualified to assess those aspects of the matter.

We have been told by Al Gore and others that global warming is occurring, that we are to blame (in part) and that this is a bad thing. Each of these claims bears proper scrutiny.

First, is global warming occurring? The statistical data seems to bear that out and I will not venture to claim any expertise in this matter. When dealing with statistics, it is important to have a sample that is large enough for the purpose at hand. In the case of climate, the sample needs to be rather large. Weather is a matter of what is happening outside your window right now. Climate is a matter of what happens in the long term. It is well established that the earth’s temperature varies and has varied in recent years (most famously during the Little Ice Age ) as well as quite radically in the distant past (in the ice age). To show that global warming is occurring what would be needed is evidence of a clear and enduring trend. Without such a trend, it could not be said that the earth is warming, cooling or staying the same. As noted above, the evidence seems to be that the average temperature has been increasing. However, as some are quick to point out, this year has included record colds and shows signs of being a cooler than average year. Some take this as evidence that global warming is not correct or even that it is a hoax. Some people have noted Al Gore’s strange silence now and have begun asking “where’s Al?”

It is reasonable to be critical in this. But, given that climate is a matter of the long term, it is important to be careful with such claims. Perhaps the cooling trend will give way to a warming trend. Perhaps not. Significant time is required to establish a trend in a meaningful way. Many scientists claim that this has been achieved and that we can be confident that the earth is warming. As such, this is the rational thing to accept. But, it is equally rational to retain a degree of skepticism-especially in a matter that is so fraught with emotions and politics.

The second concern is whether human activity is to blame or not. Even if warming is occurring, it is not the case that humans are the sole cause. After all, there are many other factors that contribute to the earth’s temperature and the extent of our influence on the world is not total. The important question is to what degree we are affecting the average temperature.

Causal reasoning is, as Hume argued, a rather tricky thing. It is difficult to determine the cause of an effect. Part of the problem is that working backwards from effect to cause is an inherently weak method of causal reasoning. This is why researchers prefer cause to effect controlled experiments. To oversimplify things, one main problem with going from effect to cause is that it is difficult to eliminate (control) other factors and thus find the actual cause or causes. In the case of a controlled experiment, these other factors are controlled so that any difference between the control group and the experimental group is most likely to be due to the alleged causal agent.

To use a specific example, consider the difference between a controlled experiment about running and a effect to cause study on health. If a researcher wanted to know about the effects of running, she would select a representative sample from the population and split this sample into two groups. The experimental group would be exposed to the causal agent in question-in other words, they would run. The control group would be matched as closely as possible to the experimental group (diet, genetics, weight and so on) but they would not be exposed to the causal agent in question-they would not run. After a suitable length of time, the two groups would be examined. The differences between the groups that are statistically significant would then be attributed to the difference between them-running. So, for example, if the blood pressure of the runners was lower than the non-runners at a statistically significant level, then it could be said that running lowers blood pressure.

Now, this can be contrasted with an effect to cause study. In this case, healthy people would be found and matched with comparable non-healthy people. The two groups would be studied to see what the relevant differences are between them. At the end of the study, the differences would be said to be the causal factor(s). Of course, it will be difficult to sort out what is a causal factor from what is a coincidence. It will also be rather unlikely that one factor will be found as the cause or even a primary cause. This is because, as we know from experiments, many factors are involved in health.

In the case of attributing climate change to humans, the overall model is an effect to cause study. We have global warming and it is inferred that human activity is a causal factor. However, we know that climate change occurred prior to the existence of humans as well as before we had achieved a significant level of technology. As such, there is room for doubt in regards to the claim that humans are a significant contributory factor in regards to climate change.

It can be countered that there is evidence that the by-products of human civilization (mainly CO2) are believed to cause climate change. This is known because non-human sources of CO2 are believed to have caused climate change in the past. Naturally enough, there is room for doubt here as well. This is because there are other factors that impact the climate, such as solar activity. As such, it is still reasonable to consider that other factors might be more significant than human activity. It is important to be fairly confident in our role before we start planning what we should do. If our role is significant, then we should take the appropriate action. Of course, the appropriate action is a matter of value and not science. Science, as scientists often point out when subject to moral criticism for things like nuclear weapons, is not concerned with ethics as a field of study. Hence, deciding what we should be aiming at doing is a matter of ethics and practical concern. This leads to the final concern.

The last area of concern is whether global warming is bad for humans. While this requires determining what is good and bad, it seems safe to begin with the assumption that what is harmful to humans can be considered bad. We have been told that global warming will flood cities, contribute to an increase in disease, lead to famine and all manner of other problems.

Obviously, if this is true, then we should do what we can to fight the temperature increase. This would be both prudent and right.

However, there is a concern worth noting. The Little Ice Age was rather damaging to humans. Crops failed, livestock died and people became sick. Cold is, as history shows, perhaps even more damaging than warmth. Perhaps it is the case that human activity is helping to prevent the cooling of the earth. If this is true, then it would be in our interest to keep things warm enough so that conditions remain to our advantage.

This does raise an interesting point to consider. If we, as a species, have the power to affect the environment on a global scale, then this is a power that we need to understand and learn how to control. While many would say we need to cut down on our impact on the climate, there might well be times when we should step up our impact. Again, consider the Little Ice Age as well as the time when much of the earth was covered in ice. Also consider the times when volcanoes radically affected the climate. These climate changes pose a threat to humans as well as other species. Unlike other species, we have the capacity to reason on a large scale and apparently the power to shape the climate. This means that we need not be passive victims of climate change-we can take an active role in protecting ourselves and other species. At this time, this role might be to act so as to offset global warming. If conditions change, our role might be to offset global cooling.

Obviously, we need to research this matter very carefully and take due care in our actions. As history has shown, it is all too easy to do terrible damage out of ignorance (witness the terrible pollution of the past and the present).

Some people might argue that we should not alter the environment. While I agree that we should not damage the environment, there is significant difference between damaging the environment and changing it in ways that are beneficial to us. As a species, we strive to survive and flourish. It would be unrealistic and actually immoral to expect humans to simply endure whatever the environment throws at us without taking action. Anyone reading this agrees with me-in behavior if not in belief. After all, you need to be using a computer to read this-think about what that entails.

%d bloggers like this: