The St. Francis Pledge and Climate Change
Francis, depicted at San Damiano.
Cardinal Roger Mahony has launched an environmental sustainability effort, timed to the Feast of St. Francis on Oct. 4, in which he has asked parishioners to take the `St. Francis Pledge‘ to help limit climate change. The Tidings, newspaper of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, said that a new creation sustainability ministry means there will be more focus in homilies on the Catholic commitment to a clean environment.
The St. Francis Pledge is the work of the Catholic Climate Covenant, which puts particular emphasis on the impact of climate change on the poor. Those who take the St. Francis Pledge agree to learn about and teach others about the causes and moral dimensions of climate change; to assess how they themselves contribute to climate change; and to advocate for Catholic principles concerning climate change. According to CatholicCulture.org, the group is partnered with the U.S. Catholic bishops and situates its mission within the framework of the church’s overall pro-life position. (I wonder if the organization CatholicVote.org would have considered this when it endorsed Sharron Angle, the Republican candidate for Senate in Nevada, because of her “defense of life.” Angle calls global warming “a mantra of the left.”)
The St. Francis Pledge comes none too soon because the movement to minimize or deny climate change is picking up a head of steam due to the influence of the Tea Party movement in the current congressional elections. As The New York Times reported recently, the Republican candidate for Senate in California, Carly Fiorina, called for people to “have the courage to examine the science of climate change.” Ron Johnson, running in Wisconsin, blamed global warming on sun spots. I think, also, that quite a few of the Republicans who will be newly elected in the House this fall will follow the line their Tea Party supporters take.
“timed to the Feast of St. Francis on Oct. 4″
… not to mention coming elections?!
I’m sorry, but I couldn’t take this pledge. I’m not convinced that climate change is a bad thing, nor that its net impact is deleterious for the poor, nor that any attempts made by humans to “fix” the climate would be better for the poor than the alternative. (Note that I’m not denying the possibility of any of these things; I’m saying that I’m not convinced).
If the proposed cap-and-trade bill, which would almost certainly harm the poor economically (thus, seemingly, making them even poorer), is an example of how this movement aims to help the poor, then I don’t want to be associated with it.
Like a lot of other people, I’m aware that various claims by proponents of climate-change legislation have now been debunked, and that some leading proponents have been discredited. Even before those politically devastating developments, the climate change movement never had me completely on board, and now I just don’t find it very credible, particularly in its more apocalyptic incarnations. The pledge seems to presume a social and scientific consensus that I just don’t perceive.
If there is a pledge to oppose poor environmental stewardship that victimizes the poor, I’d definitely consider it. But not this one.
I apologize for being so negative, but I’m alarmed that the Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles is promoting this initiative. If it turns out that climate-change fear is much ado about nothing, then he will have squandered some much-needed credibility, and the church’s social doctrine will be called into question.
Apropos of nothing, does it not take heat to make tea?
Jim, what exactly did you find objectionable in the following?
We just had a scientific presentation in santa fe that shows how the Southwest climate continues to heat up.
The proposal at the end was either adapt cap and trade or plan for more heat and drought (which here wil severely impact poor farmers.)
Apropos of David’s post belo, i think much of the climate change discussion ,if it can be called that, has been driven by ideology on the right (including the e-mail controversy of a while back.)
I hope that Cardinal Mahony (and Pope Benedict) have come to the conclusion about the effects of global warming by doing their homework on this issue. A comprehensive review of the science of our effects on the climate shows multiple lines of evidence that our climate is changing and our carbon emissions are tipping the balance of our planet’s thermal regulatory system toward a warming climate for decades, perhaps centuries to come.
I work for EPA, but I understood and talked about the dangers of the effects of our emissions on climate even during the previous administration. I work on the science, not the politics.
Also, moving away from a carbon-fueled economy will give all of us cleaner air, new and cleaner industries, more livable cities, and declaring our energy independence.
Grant – every sentence after the first one seems to assume that global warming is bad, and that we must do something about it. I can’t take the pledge on that basis. Or am I misreading the pledge? Do you think a skeptic can take it in good faith?
” A comprehensive review of the science of our effects on the climate shows multiple lines of evidence that our climate is changing and our carbon emissions are tipping the balance of our planet’s thermal regulatory system toward a warming climate for decades, perhaps centuries to come.”
Bob – there are so many articles out there that deny this is the case that I lack your certainty.
I think we need to be better stewards of our planet, no matter how one feels about climate change. Reducing emissions is a good thing, right? Conserving resources is important, no? I don’t really see the downside of this campaign even for those who are skeptics about climate change. I think its great that Catholics as Catholics are stepping up on this issue and I was very impressed by the coalition of institutions behind it. Thank you for spreading the word about this effort.
Jim: I’m surprised that you’re a climate-change skeptic. Your choice, of course, but the preponderance of evidence isn’t on your side. Let’s shift the terms a bit. Are you unsure of the threat posed by pollution? What’s so difficult about pledging to learn and educate others about climate change? What’s so onerous about promising to try to waste less? The list seems pretty tame, so I’m perplexed by your obstinate refusal to see its merits.
There is an overwhelming body of evidence in the scientific community that support global climate change. I have yet to see any studies from a credible source, a peer-reviewed journal, that suggest otherwise. The bulk of the articles that I have seen against that have been from non- science, partisan publications of questionable credibility.
Thanks, Jim. I can understand why people reading the press would come to the conclusion that the two points of view are evenly matched, or at least there is enough uncertainty that people don’t want to radically change the ways we power our modern society. That’s why I think those who can take the time to find out the facts and weigh them (politicians, social and religious leaders) should be faulted for grasping at meager evidence to support a political or economic position they want to protect.
Jim, my trusted source of information about climate change is http://www.realclimate.org. They’re very convincing (but, as mentioned in an earlier thread, I tend to be prejudiced in favor of opinions from experts.)
If you want the softer version of this, you could go watch the movie “An inconvenient truth” and afterwards read the detailed technical reviews on the realclimate.org web site.
I have no doubt that global warming is happening, in fact I believed it before it became a hot button issue. But the fact that it is happening does not mean that humans are causing it or that they can control it. History tells us that the earth’s climate has long cycled between ice ages and hot ages, and many of these cycles happened without human help since we were not here then. So I ask the question are we causing it, aiding it, effecting it, or just along for the ride?
I am a research physicist, and certainly no expert on weather patterns, but I do see a fault in tying since it is happening, man must be causing it. From what I have read man may be causing the cycle to move faster, but I believe it is going to happen no matter what man does. After all the world is dynamic even if we don’t recognize the fact because we have such a limited lifetime compared with the time span that these cycles take.
It seems to me that there is a moral issue here that is not usually faced but is very real. It is this: do we have a moral obligation to make up our minds on important matters on the basis of expert opinion when our own knowledge is not expert knowledge?
I think the answer is Yes. Surely, if I had a family dependent on me and developed a heart condition, I would be obliged to take the advice as to treatment from the best doctors available UNLESS I had strong reason to think that I somehow know more than they do. It would be particularly important to follow their advice if there was almost total unanimity as to what would be best for me to do about it.
The global warming issue is, I think, analogous. Because a very great majority of the most respected scientists in the field say that global warming is real and a huge threat to humanity, I think I have no choice but to make up my mind on the basis of what these most knowledgeable people tell me. Do scientists make mistakes? Of course, even big ones. But unless I have *counter-evidence* to the prevailing opinion, it would be utterly irrational of me not to humbly accept their opinion.
Yes, I’ve read some on the subject, and the message I get is that our own actions are *at least a principle cause* IF not the only cause of the de facto warming. (Notice the “IF” there.) Yes, there might be other causes, and some few scientists are convinced there are definitely other causes — but they themselves say they don’t know what the other causes are. (By the way, sun spots have been ruled out as a principle. cause.) Also, some scientists say that there is data showing that not all of the planet is being affected. But the preponderance of evidence is that global warming is real and that it is already having devastating results. Consider the increase in frequency and strength of hurricanes in the northern hemisphere. Unless you have some counter-evidence that shows global warming has nothing to do with these de facto changes, I have no choice but to accept that we have at least contributed to their devastation.
Because there are alternative fuels possible, I think that morally we have no right to take that the risk of continuing to spew out millions of tons of trash into the atmosphere.
“But the fact that it is happening does not mean that humans are causing it or that they can control it. History tells us that the earth’s climate has long cycled between ice ages and hot ages, and many of these cycles happened without human help since we were not here then. So I ask the question are we causing it, aiding it, effecting it, or just along for the ride?”
Michal Lang –
True. But the scientists now know something about the cycles, and it seems that we’re due for a *cooling* at this time, not a warming, as has been happening.
“I believe it is going to happen no matter what man does”
Michael — what is your *evidence* for saying this?
Also, since you’re a physicist, I’ll ask you: given the amount of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere, how could that NOT make a very noticeable difference?
I spent the summer camping in various national parks out West. Climate change is a a very big issue in so many of them; they are seeing its impact in a very real way. “In a strategic plan released this month, National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis calls climate change “the greatest threat to the integrity of our national parks that we have ever experienced.”
http://www.miller-mccune.com/environment/climate-change-could-spell-disaster-for-national-parks-23068/
Rocky Mountain NP is losing its lodgepole pines, Glacier NP its glaciers and Joshua Tree NP its joshua trees. The list goes on and on.
I know these are the not the most serious impacts of accelerated climate change, but it just seems so wrong to harm these natural places through our own carelessness.
I signed the pledge.
“Grant – every sentence after the first one seems to assume that global warming is bad, and that we must do something about it. ”
Jim–
The question you seem to be raising on this issue is not whether global warming is happening, but whether it will necessarily be bad. Am I reading that right? That strikes me as an astonishing position — we are causing significant and unintended change, but we shouldn’t do anything about it until we’re absolutely sure it’s change for the bad.
Or are you a global warming doubter in general, but just chose to draw your line of defense at a different place?
“It is this: do we have a moral obligation to make up our minds on important matters on the basis of expert opinion when our own knowledge is not expert knowledge?”
If only the average Commonweal commentator took this to heart regarding fidelity to the teaching of the Church on matters of faith and morals ;-)
Ann,
True. But the scientists now know something about the cycles, and it seems that we’re due for a *cooling* at this time, not a warming, as has been happening.
I have not heard much of anything recently about what drives the cooling/heating cycles that have been part of the earth’s history. The best explanation that I have head was published back in my youth, several decades ago. The proposed mechanism is that as the glaciers melt warm water pours into the arctic ocean, as it seems to be doing now, thereby melting the ice cap. Once free water is available in the Arctic Ocean snow begins to fall slowly leading to the build up of glaciers. As the glaciers build, the water level drops, the Arctic Ocean freezes over, and the glaciers begin to melt raising the water level so that again warm water pours into the Arctic Ocean …
That is a very brief explanation, and it seemed backed by reasonable evidence to me. If there is a newer and better model I would like to hear it.
“I believe it is going to happen no matter what man does”
I don’t really believe that man has enough power to overcome this natural cycle. I believe he may be able to slow it down or speed it up, but not stop it. Think about it, if the cycle occurs naturally, and increased carbon dioxide speeds it up, then even totally stopping CO2 production will not stop the cycle. Therefore it will happen no matter what we do.
Question, if I remember right, most of the glaciers of the ice age where in the north, but what was the weather like in the rest of the world? If I remember right even in California the weather was quite dry, leading to many creatures getting caught in the La Brea tar pits.
Last, but perhaps not least, I wonder if these cycles are part of the driving force of evolution.
It’s understandable that people awed by this beautiful planet we live on and the overwhelming power that humbles us with every downpour, hurricane, blizzard, heat wave or cold snap. It would seem like there is little we can do that would move our climate.
But remember that if the Earth was the size of a basketball, the atmosphere would be the thickness of a thin sheet of plastic wrap.
Cycles that have driven our climate typically take thousands of years to move from cooling to warming. Changes in the tilt of the planet, the shape of the earth’s orbit and moving continents and other large-scale, long term factors have nudged the climate. CO2 increased, increasing temperature, increasing water vapor, increasing temperature, forcing more CO2 and other heat-trapping gasses into the atmosphere.
Our emissions of CO2 and other heat-trapping gasses are driving a giant physical experiment as we through the chemistry of the atmosphere out of balance and past the limits that human civilization have seen.
We are taking carbon sequestered in the ground during past cycles over thousands and thousands of years and putting into the atmosphere in a few centuries. We are skipping the forcing by putting carbon into the air directly, which will create positive feedbacks that is pushing the climate toward steady warming. Thinking about that for a bit may help people who need a mental picture of how we are affecting our climate.
“I have not heard much of anything recently about what drives the cooling/heating cycles that have been part of the earth’s history. ”
Michael –
Neiither have I. So far as I know (or should I say so far as I’ve read), the climate scientists don’t yet know what causes the cycles either. My question to Congress is: why aren’t you putting more into climate studies than you are? Of course, maybe there is a lot of money there already. Just spending money won’t help. Science has to know what to explore next, what the most promising projects are, and I don’t know that the climatologists know which direction to go in — causes internal to Earth and its atmosphere? Causes external to it?? Both?
I know they’re studying a lot about the ocean. Just yesterday my electrician told me that his son, a computer scientist, works at a naval research installation where they do “all kinds” of research, including oceanographic stuff. Hmm.
Michael –
Sorry, I didn’t finish your post! YEs, I’ve seen that explanation of the cool-warm cycle, but it doesn’t seem to answer all questions, e.g.,about the northern hemispheree being colder than the southern one.
I’ve also read that some heat escapes from the Earth’s core at the junctures of the continental plates. I also wonder about the convection process in the Earth’s mantle next to hot inner core. Does that inevitably bring significant amounts of heat up to the surface of Earth then into the atmosphere? I don’t know that we’re even studying such questions. Having seen the effects of a weather catastrophe first hand, I think it’s urgent to find out all we can.
Bob Kelley –
Thanks for all of the information. We most certainly do need mental pictures to begin to think about all this. One point that you make that we non-scientiest often don’t remember is that the problem of climate change is essentially a *chemical* one, but on a tremenous scale. And the laws of chemistry are quite deterministic — we really can’t imagine our way out of this threat.
I suspect we can’t do much about the chemical forces at work, but at least we could start to think about how we can act defensively. Some say living underground will be the way to go. What a horrible thought. But will it be necessary? Oy veh, what problems.
I don know that we have a moral obligation to at least FACE the problems, scary or not.
YEs, I’ve seen that explanation of the cool-warm cycle, but it doesn’t seem to answer all questions, e.g.,about the northern hemispheree being colder than the southern one.
Ann Olivier
Just for clarification, I think a more complete description would be that the tip of the northern hemisphere is colder than its southern regions, and the tip of the southern hemisphere is also colder than its northern regions. In Australia, for example, people go north to enjoy a warmer climate.
This does not answer the question of “why”, though…
Bob Kelley ==
I wasn’t talking about that phenomenon. I’ve seen that difference explained by the different distances from the sun of the Equator and the poles. But it also seems that the poles themselves are not equally cold. Or does; the fact that the world is tilted on its axis tilt one pole closer to the sun than the other one? Even so, we’re left with the question: why is Earth tilted on its axis relative to the sun? Complexity, complexity.
Hi, Ann! Other factors are at work here. The south pole is on a continent, while the north is on an ocean. Continents hold heat or cold longer. Also the ice puts the south pole at a high altitude, where it’s colder. And it’s surrounded by the ocean while the north polar area is surrounded by land. All these factors affect how the changing climate affects each pole. The strongest effects are being seen in the northern Arctic, as climate models predicted.
“Continents hold heat or cold longer.” – not precisely right – just that a floating ice cap is easier to melt than an ice-locked continent for the reasons described above in my previous post. Gotta go! Arrivederci !
Ann,
I think I can answer a few of your questions. First, most planets are tilted to some degree, not to the sun but to a plain passing through the suns equator. Some are tilted radically, I believe one is even “upside down.” There is probably an answer as to why, and it probably has to do with how and of what they were formed. I don’t think science really has a good answer for that.
Planetary orbits are stable, kind of like a gyroscope or top, so during our winter (northern hemisphere) the north pole is pointed away from the sun and less energy falls on it, while the southern hemisphere points toward it and gets more. During the other half of the year the reverse is true. In addition, the earths orbit around the sun is not a circle, but an oval and the earth is further from the sun during our summer, and closer during the winter. This generally leads to a more moderate climate in the norther hemisphere then in the southern. These conditions do depend on local phenomena, like altitude, and are more apparent at higher latitudes (closer to the poles.
The higher latitudes (closer to the poles) is colder because less energy strikes the earth there. Since the earth is round, the near polar regions are in effect tilted to the sun. Shine a flashlight on a sphere. Use one that the light does not light the entire sphere. Note that the spot of light is smaller and brighter when pointed at the center of the sphere but seems to get bigger and dinner when pointed at the edge. Same effect wtih the sun and the earth. Much easier to show with a picture.
And you are right, things are a lot more complicated, like the earth isn’t quite a sphere, different types of land absorb energy at different rates, average cloud cover varies, etc. But even the simple explanations point to the right answers and are mostly slightly altered by the special conditions.Hope this helps a bit.
Thanks, guys, for the Earth science lessons. It’s all so complex my next question is: are computers advanced enough that they can predict changes in various factors at different times so that we can figure out what are the cause(s) of climate change at any given time?
Hi Ann! Here is, I think, how some climate models do it: put a grid on the earth to divide it into regions (where places where more things happen are divided more finely into more regions). Pretend that in one region, everything is perfectly uniform. Start at a time where you put in observed values of every relevant parameter, and start running time forward. Use equations from physics to decide, at each moment/day/month…, how things in one region change given the previous states in that and neighboring regions, and repeat, going forward into the future. These are the “simulation” climate models: just have the computer do a coarse version of what the earth is doing. How good it is depends on how precise the regions are, how well the parameters are chosen, how accurate the physics equations are, and how good is the data entered for the initial observed values. One way to test it is to start from the past, run it until the present, and check whether it portrays the current situation accurately.
- with more powerful computers, you can have a subdivision into more regions, to the model is better.
- with more understanding of the interactions, you can put in exactly the parameters that really matter,
- physics, I think, is ok
- with more tools to directly measure data, and more creative method to estimate data of the past
or inaccessible data, the results will be better.
Computers are now pretty good for this, and data is getting better and better.
Climatologists can be really creative sometimes. For example a couple of years ago someone used satellite measurements of changes to the center of gravity of the earth as a tool to estimate the change of the weight of snow and ice in Antartica!
The big questions, I think: as things change, new effects may kick in that have not been modelled because they did not use to matter, and those may have unintended, big consequences.
Example: as the Arctic gets warmer, the soil of the toundra (permafrost) is starting to melt and methane, captured a few feet below the surface under the previously iced ground, is starting to escapt in the atmosphere. Methane is a powerful climate-warming gas and there are huge quantities trapped in there, so if it all escaped the consequences are, for us, unimaginable: the models would be wrong because they do not currently take that into account. It’s unknown and scary.
Another example: the physics underlying the currents that make warm and cold water circulate around the world in the oceans are not completely understood. Scientists do not exactly know why near in the North near the Arctic cold water deep in the ocean rises in columns to go near the surface, but that’s what starts the engine the drive ocean currents, and those currents are what evens out temperature and moderates climate in many regions of the world. One conjecture I heard recently from a scientists is that some minuscule bacteria observed in that area may be responsible for those columns. Anecdotal observation suggests that these bacteria are diminishing, probably because of the climate changes in that area. Imagine current ocean currents stopped: the effects would be huge and rapid. For example Europe would become extremely cold. The vegetation in the wilderness would die. What is currently farmland would become perhaps a desert. The current patterns of where people live, where roads and infrastructures are, would become wholly inadequate to the new climate, and hundreds of millions of people would have to move and roads and houses to be rebuilt in new places. We don’t know that anything like that is going to happen of course, but even if the risk is only 2 or 3%, the implications are mind-boggling.
Ann, The atmospheric climate models have give us information on large-scale changes. The overall direction and pattern of warming has been predicted by the models. Some details, such as the larger warming in the arctic and cooling in the stratosphere are described well by the models. BTW, those two features are not expected if solar changes were causing the warming. In addition, I don’t think uncertainty is comforting, since things could get worse, not better, than predicted.
Now I really have to go – I’m going to be out of reach for a while……
Fascinating, Claire and Bob. But scary too.
As an old teacher of the rudiments of scientific method, what scares me the most is that philosophy of science has made it quite clear that we can never be sure that we have identified all of the possible causes of a phenomenon. In my experience, scientific method is presented to the sophomores in an over-simplified way: They are told that first the scientist observes a phenomenon, then hypothesizes as to possible causes. Last, by experimentation, he eliminates them one by one until there is one left standing, and the inference is made that this is the cause.
But it is also possible that there is simultaneously more than one cause (a cause which might not be apparent), and to discover one of them is not to discover and eliminate the other. The second one might still operate when the first is totally destroyed. And, of course, it is possible that the scientist never identifies all of the possible causes and so is left with no explanation of the phenomenon.
Using an established theory to predict further events is, of course, corroboration of the explanation. But there is always the possibility the the theory (and what grounds the theory itself, e.g., physics as a ground of chemistry) is too simple or even theoretically wrong and a paradigm shift might unseat it.
Still the more the scientific theories (e.g., physics, chemistry and biology) mesh, their coherence is substantiation that the whole meta-system is more probably right than the individual sciences taken one by one. (This is analogous to having three independent witnesses to one crime. Testimony of only one witness is not nearly as strong as testimony of three.) In other words, the fact that physics is (roughtly?) consistent with chemistry serves to make each of them more deserving of our assent.
Also, though the problem of complexity always remains, there are also mathematical systems of probabilitiy that can serve to make the risk of error less and less, though they cannoto entirely overcome risk..
And this is why we ought to trust science. It’s the best knowledge of the physical world we have, and the various sciences have become more and more, shall we say, complementary as more is established as probable in each of them. Yes, one of the risk factors is scientists themselves. They sometimes make mistaken observations, and some of them lie. But it seems to me that the evidence is over-whelming that most of them are competent and truthful. There are checks and balances in the science community for tossing incompetents and liars out of the community if necessary. Which is why I think I have no alternative but to accept their consensus that we are at least one major cause of global warming and that global warming is potentially catastrophic.
Ann,
Great discussion of the scientific method – thanks.
Isn’t that a good reason to be skeptical? Why do we continue to ignore the fact that much of the actual data that is available tends to, if not disprove, at least lessen the claims about anthropogenic global warming? If we look at the predictions and claims that the same people who are calling for radical solutions made 20 and more years ago, they have all proven unreliable. They began using computer models more than two decades ago, and back then they based most of their predictions on less carbon emmissions than have actually taken place (mostly due to China, India and others industrializing more quickly than expected). Those early predictions were for more warming than has taken place. Moreover, while the rate of carbon emissions has been increasing, the rate of warming has been decreasing. That is contrary to their predictions, which called for the rate of warming to increase as the amount of CO2 increased.
Doesn’t the scientific method call for you to re-evalute your theory when the data doesn’t support it?
“It seems to me that there is a moral issue here that is not usually faced but is very real. It is this: do we have a moral obligation to make up our minds on important matters on the basis of expert opinion when our own knowledge is not expert knowledge? I think the answer is Yes.”
Ann, I agree. Politicians and voters, like judges and bishops, can’t be expected to be masters of highly technical and arcane specialties. They need to rely on experts. There really isn’t a choice.
As I said in my initial comments, here, though: if there is truly a scientific consensus that (a) the earth is warming in some way that’s unusual or countercyclical; (b) humans are causing it; (c) it’s bad for the poor; (d) humans can do anything about it; and (e) whatever they can do about it is good for the poor – then I’m not aware of it.
Mark, you asked me what my concerns really are. For purposes of this discussion, (d) and (e) are my chief concerns to which we can add an (f) – that the church is spending resources here rather than in areas where the problem and the solution are more well-understood.
Let’s start with pledging to be good stewards of the environment – we’re on much surer ground there. The problems with strip mining, deforestation and overfishing, and their impact on the poor, are well-understood. I’d rather work on those than chase after what may turn out to be shades and specters.
Sean, I suppose that you are referring to this:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/55762/title/Water_vapor_slowed_recent_global__warming_trend
Indeed, as the globe is warming, conditions are changing and other effects kick in, some of them unplanned. Some, like this one (less water vapor at low altitude), can slow down the warming; in other understated effects, the arctic ice is melting much faster than they had planned and the ocean is rising faster. Basically we are running an experiment at the scale of the earth, and understanding it as it is unfolding.
Does it mean we cannot trust climate scientists? I don’t think so. In 1990 I interviewed a climate scientist who said that their main weakness was modeling the different types of clouds. Now that is done, science has progressed very fast, and their simulation models are now in excellent agreement with reality — meaning that, if you start from some point in the past and run them forward, what you get is a close match to what actually happened and to the current state. This means that they have a good grasp of the phenomena that are currently at play, and it is with this understanding that they are sounding the alarm.
Hoping that some yet-unknown effect will kick in and moderate global warming, rather than the opposite, strikes me as a bit of magical thinking.
Jim: (c), (d) and (e) are largely outside the expertise of climatologists.
“Jim: (c), (d) and (e) are largely outside the expertise of climatologists.”
Claire, true: and yet they seem to get to the heart of what this pledge asks of its takers.
(Btw, I have nothing against climate scientists or scientists of any other stripe. I gladly accord them their expertise.)
“Doesn’t the scientific method call for you to re-evalute your theory when the data doesn’t support it?”
Sean –
Indeed, it does. My main problem with all of this is that scientists can become just as enamored of their own opinions as anyone else, so that sometimes they are unable to be objective about new findings. Then the public is really in a pickle — whom to trust? That is when I think we have to look at what is the consensus of the wider scientific community, to the scientists in related fields who are capable of weighing the work of their fellow-scientists. In the case of climate change, what I have read about the wider scientific community’s opinion is that climate change is real and potentially catastrophic. Yes, there are some who disagree, and we should listen to them. Also, it is always possible for anyone to criticize the *logic* of an expert. Experts sometimes make logical mistakes. But in the case of global warming from what I can see the data, the arguments and the logic seem to be pretty cut an dried.
Could this change? Yes, if the scientists change *their* opinions based on new data and/or discovery of error.
As to the competence of the scientists, here’s another point. They, just as much as the rest of humanity, have loved ones whom they want to protect (not to mention themselves), so for the climatologists especially their work is not just a matter of professional interest. ;They are talking about the survival of their own children and grandchildren. I suspect that practically without exception they’re being very, very careful to do a good job;
There is yet another moral issue to be discussed, I think. Because the consensus is that we could be facing a catastophe, I think that we have a special obligation to be very conservative in rejecting the claims of the scientists who say we need to change our behavior. Let’s say that you’re driving down the street and you hear a strange and very loud noise and smoke coming from your car. YOu’re not sure what it is. Do you continue driving? No, you change your behavior — you stop.
I also think that we have an obligation to learn what the basic scientific problems are. Scientists *can* be wrong, and, again, given the seriousness of the problem, I think we are obliged to try to understand what scientists on both sides of the argument are saying.
Jim P.: the poor may be your children and grandchildren, who will have to use inhalers so they can breathe our poisoned air.
Here’s a scary article not about climate change but about a new “sustainability movement”. According to the article by Peter Wood in the Chronicle it goes beyond the ecological movement, but unlike that movement it is not a grassroots movement. Some of it is well-financed and aims at radically changing American education from the top down by enlisting committments from university presidents:
” In June 1992, Sen. John Kerry and Teresa Heinz attended the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development—the Rio Summit. On their return to the United States, they founded an advocacy group called Second Nature, specifically dedicated to bringing the sustainability movement to the American college campus. Second Nature is explicitly radical. It calls for making “sustainable living the foundation of all learning and practice in higher education.” Second Nature chose as its primary tactic the winning over of college and university presidents, and it has so far succeeded in getting 674 to sign its “American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment.”"
And Second Nature is not the only sustainability organization.
The article is so negative I find it hard to believe all its generalizations. But if it’s right, then we might in for a very distracting time of busy-bodies trying to enforce their ascetic rules of living on the rest of us while the important issues — the scientific ones — are put on the shelf.
http://chronicle.com/article/From-Diversity-to/124773/
“These are the busybodies who do things like go through students’ trash to make sure that everyone is diligently recycling, and who hector everyone to squeeze into a tighter carbon footprint. The Green Gator at Allegheny College is promoting dorm-based compost bins and planning to map energy usage. It urges lights out in the bathrooms and laundry. Bard College students, meanwhile, are working on “the psychology of fostering sustainable behavior” and are promoting “Recyclemania.” If it sounds like the “psychology” of sustainability is akin to OCD, maybe that isn’t far off. At the University of California at San Diego, the enforcers posted a shocking discovery complete with photos: “Sadly today we found a bunch of recyclables in the GARBAGE!” A happy ending, though: “We rescued all the recycling … and got them in the recycling bin.”"
“On the other hand, sustainatopians also busy themselves with eliminating trays from cafeterias and attacking the threat of plastic soda straws.”
That sounds more funny than scary, and the political aspects are hard to believe.
Claire -
Yes, it’s funny — Keystone Cops stuff, except that it distracts attention from some super-important issues.
Something that disgusts me about the movement is that so many college presidents are so asinine that they’re treating this trivia as a guiding principle for formulating new college curricula. Or maybe they’re just *saying* that they’re for it. If embracing the movement leads to funding for their schools, they might go with it, or at least talk the talk. (Yes, I’m a cynic about some things.)
Scientific American and Nature conducted an online poll of their readers to find out how much they trust science. SA published the results this month. See “In Science We Trust”. Various topics were covered. Concerning evolution, the scientists earned a 4.3 confidence rating (on a scale of 1-5) on down to last year’s flu epidemic concerning which they got a confidence rating of 3.19.
Asked “Over the past year, have your views about climate altered in any way?” 40 per cent said “I am more certain humans are changing the climate”. Note: many of their readers are themselves scientists. I wonder what proportion of them changed in that direction.