While science and philosophy are about determining the nature of reality, politics is about creating perceptions alleged to be reality. This is one of many reasons why it is wiser to accept claims supported by science and reason over claims “supported” by ideology and interest.
Climate change is a matter of both science and politics. 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 using the facts. Unfortunately, politicians and other non-scientists make claims about climate science, usually in the form of unsupported talking points.
On the conservative side, there was a gradual shift in their talking points. In the beginning of climate change denial, they simply asserted that there was no climate change and the scientists were wrong. It was alleged that scientists were motivated by ideology to lie. In contrast, those whose profits could be impacted if climate change were real were presented as trustworthy sources.
In the face of mounting evidence and shifting public opinion, there was a shift to the claim that while climate change is occurring, it is not caused by humans. This shifted to the claim that climate change is caused by humans, but there is nothing we can (or should) do now. After Trump’s return to the White House, there has been a return to ignoring and denying climate change. Those who are willing to concede that climate change is occurring while also wanting to do nothing about it often repeat some talking points.
One talking point is that scientists are exaggerating the impact of climate change and it will not be as bad as they claim. To be fair, this can be based on a reasonable concern about the accuracy of any prediction. In the case of a scientific prediction based on data and models, a reasonable inquiry would focus on the accuracy of the data and the quality of the models.
To rationally 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 evidence that scientists are intentionally exaggerating. However, if they are exaggerating, this could be proven by examining the data and using it an accurate model. That is, if the scientists were exaggerating, the scientific method would show they were wrong. Shockingly enough, climate change deniers do not run better models with better data to disprove climate change.
In some cases, it is claimed climate scientists are exaggerating from nefarious motives—a liberal agenda, a hatred of oil companies, communist tendencies, a desire for fame or some other wickedness. However, even if it could be shown that scientists have wicked motives, it does not follow that their predictions are wrong. To dismiss a claim because of an alleged defect in the person making the claim is an ad homimen fallacy. Being suspicious because of a possible nefarious motive can be reasonable, and such motives can undercut a person’s credibility. So, for example, the fact that fossil fuel companies have a financial stake does not prove that their claims about climate change are wrong. But the fact that they have an incentive to deny such claims makes it reasonable to be suspicious of their objectivity and credibility. Naturally, if one suspects there is a global conspiracy of scientists driven by their interests, then one should be willing to consider that fossil fuel companies might be influenced by their financial interests.
One could, of course, hold that the scientists are exaggerating from a noble motive–so people will act. To use an analogy, parents sometimes exaggerate harms to try to persuade their children not to try it. While this is kinder than attributing nefarious motives to scientists, it is also no evidence against their claims. And even if scientists are exaggerating, there is still the question about how bad things really would be—they might still be very bad.
Naturally, if an objective and properly conducted study overturned the established science using the scientific method, I would have to accept that study. But no such study exists, for obvious reasons. If the climate change deniers had the truth on their side, they would be embracing rather than fighting science.
The second talking point is to claim that proposed solutions, such as laws, will not solve the problems. Interestingly, this talking point concedes that climate change is a problem. This point does have a reasonable foundation in that it would be unreasonable to take actions that are ineffective.
While crafting laws is politics, sorting out whether such laws would be effective falls in the domain of science. For example, if a law proposes cutting carbon emissions, there is a legitimate question as to whether it would have a meaningful impact on 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 and other proposals would not work, then the people who confidently make that claim should be equally confident in providing adequate evidence for their claim. It is reasonable to expect such evidence, although it is rarely forthcoming. One interesting exception is when scientists are critical of “mad science” proposals which would either not work or make things worse.
The third talking point is that the proposals to address climate change will hurt the American economy. As with the other points, this does have a rational basis, and it is sensible to consider the impact on the economy.
One approach is utilitarian: we can accept so much environmental harm (such as coastal flooding) in return for economic gain (such as jobs and profits generated by fossil fuels). Assuming that one is a utilitarian and that one accepts this value calculation, then one can accept that enduring such gains could be worth the harm. As usual, the costs will fall heavily on those who are not profiting. For example, fossil fuel executives do not have to endure the harms of climate change.
Utilitarian decisions about climate change should involve openly considering 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 an approach will be correct. 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, this is unlikely to happen—especially during the Trump regime. To be fair and balanced, the mainstream Democrats will not save us.
It is also worth considering that addressing climate change could be good for the economy. After all, preparing coastal towns and cities for therising 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. But I do worry that these solutions will create new problems; but that is how we operate as a species: solving problems by creating more problems until we become extinct.
A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!
You can subscribe and read for free.