This post on climateprogress.org is further evidence that David Koch, an alumnus of Deerfield Academy (my alma mater) is just about about one of the worst people in America. His interests are entirely self-serving, and his largesse seems to be nothing more than attempt to buy his way into heaven.
Sorry David, even a lifetime of good deeds cannot wash away the sins which you continue to perpetrate on your fellow humans. Deerfield Academy should be ashamed for honoring you so enthusiastically.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Climate Change Skeptics are Just Plain Wrong
For those of you still engaged in the debate over whether climate change is real, here’s some news: the debate’s over, and the climate change skeptics have lost. With apologies for the bluntness, they are simply wrong, and they most likely chose to disagree due to their short-term economic self-interest.
Consider the new study published by William Anderegg of Stanford University in PNAS, the official journal of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Anderegg and his coauthors examined an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers. Their “publication and citation data show that (i) 97-98 percent of climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets [of climate change] and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of [climate change] are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.” Seems like a fairly one-sided debate.
But wait, skeptics say, what about that whole Climategate debacle, where stolen e-mails from climate scientists at East Anglia University in Britain supposedly showed climate data manipulation? And what about Michael Mann, the climate scientist from Penn State and the University of Virginia? His research has been under investigation by overzealous political opportunist Ken Cuccinelli (Attorney General of Virginia). These incidents are proof that scientists have been manipulating data and lying about climate change, aren’t they!?
Sorry climate change skeptics, but both accusations have been extensively reviewed and dismissed. In Britain, three official panels found no reason to dispute either the rigor or the honesty of the climate scientists. At Penn State, two panels found Michael Mann not guilty of any scientific wrongdoing.
Subsequent comprehensive reports from the National Academies of Science and the National Research Council have not only confirmed the global consensus on climate change, but also more fully detailed the consequences to the U.S. of a warming planet.
Let us imagine the skeptics have seen the evidence and are convinced. Polls show most Americans both don’t consider climate change a priority, they claim. But is this really true? A new poll and analysis of polling data by Dr. Jonathan Krosnick of Stanford University finds that a large majority of Americans believe climate change is real, is caused by human actions and that the government should actively pursue ways of slowing and reversing climate change.
Krosnick debuted this poll in a recent New York Times op-ed. The most intriguing results came from the state level polls (especially important for senators), where Krosnick finds that majorities in every single state believe climate change is caused by human activity (the majority of states had rates of 80-90 percent). Further, Krosnick found that an astounding 74 percent of Americans support the concept of a cap-and-trade regime to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
So why are climate change skeptics so vocal and why are they given a bigger platform than their arguments deserve? Easy: they are most often people with the most to lose if the world shifts away from fossil fuels, and they have lots of money. Companies like Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries and others base their entire business model on our dependence on fossil fuels. And they are decidedly more interested in maintaining healthy quarterly profits than in supporting a decades-long global transition that leaves their futures uncertain.
I wish the scientists and experts were wrong. I wish pouring carbon dioxide into our atmosphere had no effect on global temperatures and we could go on merrily burning oil, natural gas and coal. But they are not, and no amount of lobbying, obfuscation or denial will stop the temperature from rising.
The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is overcooked.
Consider the new study published by William Anderegg of Stanford University in PNAS, the official journal of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Anderegg and his coauthors examined an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers. Their “publication and citation data show that (i) 97-98 percent of climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets [of climate change] and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of [climate change] are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.” Seems like a fairly one-sided debate.
But wait, skeptics say, what about that whole Climategate debacle, where stolen e-mails from climate scientists at East Anglia University in Britain supposedly showed climate data manipulation? And what about Michael Mann, the climate scientist from Penn State and the University of Virginia? His research has been under investigation by overzealous political opportunist Ken Cuccinelli (Attorney General of Virginia). These incidents are proof that scientists have been manipulating data and lying about climate change, aren’t they!?
Sorry climate change skeptics, but both accusations have been extensively reviewed and dismissed. In Britain, three official panels found no reason to dispute either the rigor or the honesty of the climate scientists. At Penn State, two panels found Michael Mann not guilty of any scientific wrongdoing.
Subsequent comprehensive reports from the National Academies of Science and the National Research Council have not only confirmed the global consensus on climate change, but also more fully detailed the consequences to the U.S. of a warming planet.
Let us imagine the skeptics have seen the evidence and are convinced. Polls show most Americans both don’t consider climate change a priority, they claim. But is this really true? A new poll and analysis of polling data by Dr. Jonathan Krosnick of Stanford University finds that a large majority of Americans believe climate change is real, is caused by human actions and that the government should actively pursue ways of slowing and reversing climate change.
Krosnick debuted this poll in a recent New York Times op-ed. The most intriguing results came from the state level polls (especially important for senators), where Krosnick finds that majorities in every single state believe climate change is caused by human activity (the majority of states had rates of 80-90 percent). Further, Krosnick found that an astounding 74 percent of Americans support the concept of a cap-and-trade regime to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
So why are climate change skeptics so vocal and why are they given a bigger platform than their arguments deserve? Easy: they are most often people with the most to lose if the world shifts away from fossil fuels, and they have lots of money. Companies like Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries and others base their entire business model on our dependence on fossil fuels. And they are decidedly more interested in maintaining healthy quarterly profits than in supporting a decades-long global transition that leaves their futures uncertain.
I wish the scientists and experts were wrong. I wish pouring carbon dioxide into our atmosphere had no effect on global temperatures and we could go on merrily burning oil, natural gas and coal. But they are not, and no amount of lobbying, obfuscation or denial will stop the temperature from rising.
The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is overcooked.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Conservatism and Climate Change
For those of us who really care about climate change, here’s a question. Why? Why do we want to stop the surface temperature of the earth from warming, the icebergs from melting, sea levels from rising, polar bears from dying, and coral reefs from shrinking? The answer may be less obvious, and less virtuous, than we think.
The earth’s climate has shifted countless times over billions of years in a variety of extreme directions, with a dizzying array of consequences for life on the planet. True, current climate change will negatively affect a multitude of animal and plant life, but it will also positively affect other animal and plant life more suited to the changing global conditions.
Humanity will survive, and the natural world will adapt and reach a new equilibrium. So why do we want to stop these changes? Is it guilt from being the cause? Perhaps it is because the costs are more visible than the benefits. But should we feel guilty? Plant life previously changed our entire atmosphere, introducing large amounts of oxygen for the first time. No doubt some species suffered. Animals flourished. Are plants to blame for those changes?
While guilt may be part of it, I submit that we care most about climate change’s negative impacts on humanity. We mostly like current temperatures, rainfall patterns, sea levels, and plant and animal distributions. We have well-established human patterns (both globally and locally) that depend on a degree of environmental certainty. Our cities are built near water, our crops are sewn where they grow best, and we are dependent on the predictability of a variety of natural cycles. Changing our habits and infrastructure would be incredibly expensive, wildly inconvenient, and would impose a heavy toll on human lives.
This leads me to believe that we are motivated to slow climate change mostly by conservative and selfish impulses. We want things to remain the same, and we don’t want to deal with adapting to change. My point is that stopping climate change is not a moral cause, nor is it an environmental cause, and it need not be in order to feel passionate about it. It is a cause predicated upon the continuity of our physical, cultural, economic, and political preferences. And that is alright.
When it comes to climate change, those of us who want to take action now are the true conservatives. (Note that political conservatives use the exact same argument of preserving opportunity for future generations when they discuss deficit control.) And approaching the issue with that attitude will be incredibly important in marshaling public opinion to inspire our leaders to take action. We must point out that the benefits of stopping climate change outweigh the costs.
Opponents of action raise valid, if shortsighted, points. Slowing and stopping climate change will have short-term consequences. It won’t all be green jobs and windmills overnight. People will lose jobs. Economic growth will slow. Some Western Virginia coal mining towns will become ghost towns.
But we know that the consequences of inaction are far worse than the consequences of action. And we know that once we start changing our ways, eventually the drive of new innovation and human ingenuity will yield a civilization able to sustain itself and live within its means. And the best way we can communicate that is not by talking about polar bears and coral reefs, but by being honest with ourselves and others, being selfish, and speaking the language of conservatism when we talk about climate change.
The earth’s climate has shifted countless times over billions of years in a variety of extreme directions, with a dizzying array of consequences for life on the planet. True, current climate change will negatively affect a multitude of animal and plant life, but it will also positively affect other animal and plant life more suited to the changing global conditions.
Humanity will survive, and the natural world will adapt and reach a new equilibrium. So why do we want to stop these changes? Is it guilt from being the cause? Perhaps it is because the costs are more visible than the benefits. But should we feel guilty? Plant life previously changed our entire atmosphere, introducing large amounts of oxygen for the first time. No doubt some species suffered. Animals flourished. Are plants to blame for those changes?
While guilt may be part of it, I submit that we care most about climate change’s negative impacts on humanity. We mostly like current temperatures, rainfall patterns, sea levels, and plant and animal distributions. We have well-established human patterns (both globally and locally) that depend on a degree of environmental certainty. Our cities are built near water, our crops are sewn where they grow best, and we are dependent on the predictability of a variety of natural cycles. Changing our habits and infrastructure would be incredibly expensive, wildly inconvenient, and would impose a heavy toll on human lives.
This leads me to believe that we are motivated to slow climate change mostly by conservative and selfish impulses. We want things to remain the same, and we don’t want to deal with adapting to change. My point is that stopping climate change is not a moral cause, nor is it an environmental cause, and it need not be in order to feel passionate about it. It is a cause predicated upon the continuity of our physical, cultural, economic, and political preferences. And that is alright.
When it comes to climate change, those of us who want to take action now are the true conservatives. (Note that political conservatives use the exact same argument of preserving opportunity for future generations when they discuss deficit control.) And approaching the issue with that attitude will be incredibly important in marshaling public opinion to inspire our leaders to take action. We must point out that the benefits of stopping climate change outweigh the costs.
Opponents of action raise valid, if shortsighted, points. Slowing and stopping climate change will have short-term consequences. It won’t all be green jobs and windmills overnight. People will lose jobs. Economic growth will slow. Some Western Virginia coal mining towns will become ghost towns.
But we know that the consequences of inaction are far worse than the consequences of action. And we know that once we start changing our ways, eventually the drive of new innovation and human ingenuity will yield a civilization able to sustain itself and live within its means. And the best way we can communicate that is not by talking about polar bears and coral reefs, but by being honest with ourselves and others, being selfish, and speaking the language of conservatism when we talk about climate change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)