[ANALOGY ALERT! The story you are about to read is an analogy. If it had been an actual diagnosis, I’d be much more excited and quite possibly distressed. I don’t actually smoke, by the way – part of the analogy.]
Bad news.
Maybe.
I went to ten doctors. Nine of them tell me that it looks like I might be developing lung cancer and I would be wise to quit smoking. They aren't even saying for sure that my smoking might cause or contribute to the possible lung cancer, but they are saying instead that it would just be prudent to quit smoking, just in case.
They’re telling me that a good bit of evidence suggests that there IS a link between smoking and cancer.
The good news is that the tenth doctor tells me that I may or may not be getting lung cancer, but regardless, there's no real reason to quit smoking.
Why would I listen to the one and not the nine?
======
What I’m wondering is for what reason would we ignore the majority of scientists or taking a prudent (conservative) approach when told that there may well be dangers in our lifestyle (global climate change, peak oil, for instance).
I doubt that we would ignore the majority in the case of a personal diagnosis…UNLESS we were committed to a certain lifestyle and we don’t want to change (as in the dedicated and/or addicted smoker), and even then, probably most of us would heed the majority of doctors.
Why, then, ignore the majority and prudent action in the cases of climate change and peak oil? This is not to say that the majority couldn’t be wrong or that prudent action un-needed, but rather to ask WHY anyone would choose to ignore the majority or prudent action?
17 comments:
Exactly. About 15 years ago when the widening holes in the ozone layer seemed to be an even more immediate threat than global warming, I made a similar analogy. And I remarked that the truly CONSERVATIVE thing to do would be to stop putting out CFCs until we were CERTAIN whether or not the ozone layer could heal itself. We put in place a cap and trade system on CFCs and, faster than anyone expected, the ozone layer has healed considerably.
So, I want us to do the same thing with climate change. Firm caps on greenhouse gasses, especially C02, a cap and trade system to encourage innovation in going beyond the caps, lifestyle changes (biking, public transportation, video conference rather than commuter flights, living closer to work, reduced consumption, etc.) and incentives for alternative fuels and alternative energy production. It may be too late to stop all the damage of global warming, but the sooner we start to take bold steps, the more we can lessen the impact and maybe even see some healing.
However, what stops many people from agreeing with you is something like this: A belief that the rapture will come, the earth will be destroyed, so we don't need to care what happens to it--it'll last just long enough. Of course, this assumes that humans are the only valuable part of God's creation and that neglect of creation care will not bring judgment--things I consider risky assumptions.
That's why I'm not knee-jerk opposed to "conservatism" rightly defined. Just what conservatism has come to mean, which is anything but.
Your analogy is in the right direction, but too simplistic to fit the case for climate change.
Allow me then to suggest something a little closer:
You visit eleven doctors and one of them, as you describe, tells you that there's nothing to worry about and no changes in your habits need be made.
Nine of them tell you that you show signs of precancerous condition in your lungs caused by the cigarettes you smoke. If you will only switch to the 'low tar' brand they endorse, you will be doing a great deal to reduce your risk of cancer.
The tenth doctor tells you the brand is not important, it's smoking in general that's killing you and you must quit altogether.
Further you find that the the nine doctors were funded by this or that tobacco company.
Yet wouldn't you rely on the advice of the majority?
-------------------
Climate change is much like that. We point to carbon in the atmosphere from transportation and heating fuels and point to treaties that limit some countries use of carbon fuels. What some scientists have pointed out, and it is no where near one in ten, more like half of them, is that the real problem is not the amount of CO2 being released but the failure to sequester it back into the soil. Subscribing to treaties that simply limit carbon fuel use is like recommending low tar cigarettes as an effective measure to avoid lung cancer.
Sequestering carbon back into the soil would require us all to DO something rather than avoiding doing something else. It would require everyone to become individually actively productive rather than being the cheering section to get the government to do something.
The problem with your analogy, E, is - at least to my understanding - that it is the anti-climate change climatologists who are more typically on the payroll or receiving money or support in one way or the other from the "tobacco companies."
I've not seen any evidence that anywhere near the 90+% of scientists who think there may be evidence pointing to human causes for climate change are on the dole.
The scientists I've read about who are talking about climate change ARE talking about us individually taking action, as well as setting policy, to address the possible problems.
Dan:"I've not seen any evidence that anywhere near the 90+% of scientists who think there may be evidence pointing to human causes for climate change are on the dole."
And the scientists who are raising the alarm about global warming and it's cause by fuel use .... where does their funding come from? They don't work free, you know.
It comes from grants and donations made by groups who are against industrialization.
Now, make no mistake, I'm against industrialization too, but I don't try to buy support for my views by funding scientific research.
Very much like the question of approaching the Bible without a bias and coming to a conclusion as to what it says (which is NEVER done), researchers are under the same bias, and if not then their source of funding always is.
Whoever has the most money to put into it gets to determine what scientific reality is.
Understand in this that it isn't a question of whether the climate is changing, it's a question of what's causing it. Global warming is taking place on Mars right now at about the same pace it is taking place on Earth, for example. What the nay-saying scientists are saying, by and large, is that attempts to prevent climate change are useless, we only have the possibility of preparing for it.
Being confused by this, many Warmists look at the very few scientists and studies that say that the is no climate change at all and say "Look, anyone who doesn't agree that human activity is causing climate change is the same as those people and that's only 10% of the studies, why aren't people listening to us."
There is no conclusive "proof" or evidence that human activity is causing global warming. That's why no "action" is taking place.
------------------------
Also you have that people are NOT going to give up their lifestyles until they are forced into it.
If one were to go along with the model that human activity is making climate change worse, then it isn't parking the car for a couple trips a week that has vastly increased greenhouse gases, it's the depletion of topsoil leaving no sink in which to sequester atmospheric carbon. The solution to this is to change agricultural practices to the very small farm and garden model.
And yet what did we hear from one of your commenters on this very list?
But I have ZERO desire to move to a farm. After a month, I would commit suicide.
That's how strongly most people feel about hanging onto their cherished lifestyle. And they'd gladly pay for and endorse any study that said that the solution to the changing climate was anything but an alteration in the lifestyle they want to live.
We put in place a cap and trade system on CFCs and, faster than anyone expected, the ozone layer has healed considerably.
Lol.
In early October 2006, the Antarctic stratosphere was the coldest it has been since 1979, and the ozone hole loomed bigger than ever, spanning an area larger than North America. What's going on? Wasn't the 1987 United Nations Montreal Protocol—an international agreement that set limits on the emission of ozone-eating compounds like chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs—supposed to shrink Earth's life-threatening atmospheric bald spot?
Like the chemistry of global warming, the answer is not simple.
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/feb/ozone-hole-worsening
You guys are biased in a certain direction, how so? You make an analogy that there's a 90% agreement of scientists in your biased direction when you have zero proof of such and in the face of ample proof of that being incorrect. But nothing will shake you from the belief.
The fact of the matter is that, if implemented, the Kyoto protocol would have no measurable effect on the climate but would cost trillions. A better analogy would have been half your doctors telling you to give them all your money and in 50 years you wont notice anything having changed.
There's also the obvious retort that the consensus of scientists has been so blaringly wrong so many times in the past that it's a wonder anyone takes the consensus at face value anymore.
So, you're saying it makes more sense to listen to the loner scientist out there advocating something? If that's the case, which loner scientist shall we heed?
Certainly, the consensus can be wrong. But isn't it even moreso true that the lone scientist out there saying "You're all wrong and I'm right!" is most often more likely to be wrong?
For every Copernicus out there saying "You're all wrong, the earth rotates around the sun, not the other way around" who turns out to be right, aren't there 10,000 other examples of the mad scientist, telling everyone else they're wrong. "I CAN bring life to dead tissue! Bwa-ha-ha!!"
I suppose, then, Dan, the difference would be this:
There are two approaches (at least) to take in dealing with the academics of it:
1) This fellow is a scientist and knows .... well ... stuff. So I look at his academic credentials and accept what he says as true. If scientists seem to contradict one another, it's up to me to pay Scientist Lotto and pick the right one. Once I've picked him, he will be like Star War's Obi-wan Kenobi and wave his hand in front of my eyes and say:
"I am a scientist"
(glassy eyed)"You are a scientist."
"You will accept what I say as true."
"I will accept what you say as true."
"You can't know this stuff for yourself."
"I can't know this stuff for myself."
or
2) You bring up each of the opposing scientific conclusions and you say, "OK, I haven't got all day. You have 30 minutes (or 30 pages) to explain what you have to say and why you think your conclusion is right. If you have no hard numbers or you can't manage to express it in (generally well read) layman's terms, then to Hades with you, you're useless!"
With the second approach the one or the nine scientists are moot. What do they have to say? Does it add up, is it verifiable.
You can't just flip to the last page and say, "Oh see, he thinks cars are causing climate change and (eyes glazing over) he's .... a .... scientist ...."
Eleutheros, sometimes your smugness wears thin. Some of us do read, as well. Read what the scientists on both sides have said - maybe not extensively, but 30 pages worth, sure.
And you know what? Some of us, having read what many various scientists have said, think there's reason to act prudently with regards to global climate change.
We think that there's no doubt that we are negatively impacting the environment and this possibility of human impact upon climate change is yet another in the looooong litany of reasons (some more valid and more proven than others) of why we should behave conservatively with our personal, regional, national and global policies.
Dan:"And you know what? Some of us, having read what many various scientists have said, think there's reason to act prudently with regards to global climate change."
Really? Read the research methodology AND looked for the opposing scientific critique and THEN came to your conclusion?
If you had, you would know that there is no such thing as proof that human activity is causing global warming or climate change. There is only speculation.
Scientific correlation is hard to come by. Do you recall all the hype of decades earlier that said that eggs should be avoided because they contribute to circulatory disease? The majority of scientists agreed and dietitians followed blindly.
Was there proof? No, not a bit of it. The observation was only that arterial plaque is composed of cholesterol like compounds and those same compounds also occur in abundance in eggs. Why take chances?
Now we know better. Study after study after study shows no correlation between eggs in the diet and heart disease. None. The recommendation now is that two eggs a day is fine, and truth be known, probably a lot more.
Global warming is very much like that. There is no direct evidence that human activity is causing climate change. Might be, but it can't be proven.
Is it prudent to make drastic changes because, who knows, it might be causing changes? Most people don't think so.
But my point here isn't whether climate change is real or not, only that you seem to be proffering the scientific consensus as if it were a dire warning of doom we could prevent. I'm pointing out that if you read the scientists with sufficient care rather than just doing a head count, you would realize the degree to which this is all just speculation.
"you would know that there is no such thing as proof that human activity is causing global warming or climate change. There is only speculation."
You have never seen me on these pages suggest that there is any "proof" that human impact upon global climate change is a known fact. All I've said is that a large number of scientists have looked in to it and it seems there may be evidence to suggest that.
AND I've said that this is just another reason in the LOOOONG litany of reasons (peak oil, the millions who die each year from auto and pollution related reasons, damage to our environment, dirty water and air, and the costs associated with that, etc, etc, etc) of why it would be only prudent, reasonable and moral to change our personal and societal policies to something more solidly sustainable.
Well, you know, Dan, that this is one of the points on which I agree with you, pretty much completely. That is, our culture and economy are not sustainable and it is anywhere from imprudent to disastrous to not take this into account.
The reason I point up the equal imprudence of taking a scientist head count is that it gives us a false sense of direction and expectation.
In the case of sustainability, expectation is a less real and practical attitude than is anticipation.
That is, there is a school of thought that suggests that 'every little bit counts'. But, says I, sometimes it doesn't. If you were facing a $10 million dollar liability, would an extra $7.35 put toward that debt make any difference at all? No, says I.
Like that the depletion of oil and climate change are on the way. If we all suddenly got twice the gas mileage, would that make a difference? No. Recall the Jeavons Paradox, it would drive the price of oil down and encourage more consumption.
This principle has been demonstrated ad infinitem through history. Nore food production did not result in better fed people, but rather a lot more underfed people. Technology has not resulted in lives of leisure but rather in families that work so much they rarely see one another. Etc.
Like this, calls to reduce consumption, or the utterly token and useless system of carbon credits might make some people feel better and give others a job for a while, but the expectation of such action (or inaction) is a placebo substitute for the anticipation.
Did you ever see a clever scifi flick The Last Starfighter? Toward the end when the traitor of the good guys was leading the bad guys through the defenses and the protagonist knocks out their Whatsit Gizmo resulting in the invading space careening toward crashing into the planet, the traitor says, "What do we do now?" His more stoic allies reply, "Now we die."
Listening to the consensus of grant supported scientists pontificate about global warming and encouraging more efficient IC engines, standing around in suits with drink in hand for a photo op at a conference, rallies and letters and all such are the $7.35 against the $10 million dollar debt.
It's time to set all that aside and look at the real situation. Great changes are coming. There will be a "great reckoning in a small room."
The ONLY people you may be able to affect in all this are those seated around your supper table.
The only thing that would materially help the environment (although it likely would not stop the present warming trend) would be a rather drastic depopulation. So, are we going to "take action" by sending people to the disintegrators? That might not stop the present warming trend but it would mean fewer people would starve to death, and we could avoid conflicts like that in Darfur.
And it would make the oil last longer too.
Yeah, CG, I think most right-thinking people will stay away from any of those sort of Ultimate Solutions.
So, can we make personal and national policies that encourage other, more rational and less horrifying approaches? I think so.
Dan:"So, can we make personal and national policies that encourage other, more rational and less horrifying approaches? I think so."
It's time to apply some Dan's Rules of Engagement here. These personal and national policies, what are they and what is the basis for thinking they can turn aside a coming die-off of human population when modern industrial agribusiness is no longer possible.
You know the facts, you've numerated them yourself from time to time. Our food depends utterly on fossil fuel. We are depleting fossil fuel and when we have depleted it, there is no substitute in the mind nor imagination of humankind that can replace it. With no fossil fuel for machinery and fertilizer, it is not possible to produce enough food to sustain seven billion people (much less ten to twelve by the time this comes about in earnest.) After the depletion of soil, water, and fossil fuel ........ what's the plan for feeding billions of people?
Don't have one? Then there will be a die-off.
You see, just as when you bring up energy use and your critics confuse a reporting of the facts for an endorsement of the outcome ("So, you're for us running out of gas, are you?"), you are doing the same thing with CG's observation that the human population is headed for a biological die-off unless there is a plan on how an adequate diet is going to be produced sans fossil energy? Is there such a plan? No, just like in the oil debate, there are only vague pontifications about "personal choices" and "encourage policies", if we only blog and write letters and stand around drink in hand, name tag on lapel, in front of cameras at conventions, a solution will appear in the future.
Just because we find a looming mathematical reality distasteful and unpleasant doesn't mean we can slap the non-PC mathematician on the wrist and the problem will thereby go away.
By random circumstance I happen to know a thing or two about what it takes to produce food without the aide of fossil fuel. I wouldn't be surprised if CG and some of your other readers know a bit of this too. So we ask, as you do of the oil cornucopians, "Oh, the idea of a starving world is distasteful to you? What are you going to substitute for oil-grown food to prevent this from happening?"
I'm not disagreeing with you, E. I'm saying that, this being the case, wouldn't it be wiser and more moral to encourage personal and corporate ("us all") responsibility and begin reducing our numbers to a more sustainable level before circumstances do it in less than desirable ways?
Post a Comment