|
Image from Transition Initiatives Primer |
|
Home Index |
|
Home Index |
|
Where do I stand? I strongly lean toward the belief that the climate change we are seeing at present is due to our activities, but I try to keep an open mind. What would be the point in accepting one side of the argument or the other absolutely and uncritically? We must always be prepared to change our minds if new and compelling evidence comes to light.
Those people who want the facts about climate change should look for reliable information in the science press (journals such as New Scientist and Scientific American are understandable by intelligent laymen) rather than the popular press.
| We are causing climate change | We are not causing climate change | |
|---|---|---|
| We take strong action | We avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
Big money will have to be redirected. | We move from unsustainable technologies to sustainable before
we really have to.
Big money will have to be redirected. |
| We do nothing | Global disaster! Huge loss of species and damage to our environment; sea level will rise by several metres; great areas of the Earth will become uninhabitable or at least will no longer be able to support the populations that they now have; rainfalls will be much less in some places, more in other places (changes such as these will likely cause mass migrations and wars); the acidity of the oceans will increase with possibly disastrous results to fishing industries and to other ocean organisms; ocean temperatures will continue to rise, causing, among other things, loss of many coral reefs; ocean currents might change; it is possible that the oceans could become anoxic. (I have written more about the probable effects of climate change in Disasters compared.) | We will still have to change away from fossil fuels eventually, simply because they will not last for ever. |
The precautionary principleWhen one is faced with two possible paths and cannot be sure which is the best it is wise to look at possible consequences. If one path leads to possible disaster and the other does not, then we plainly should be very wary about taking the former. |
Cost of climate changeThe cost of greatly reducing our reliance on fossil fuels will be high, but the cost of the damage done by run-away climate change will be much higher; it will be incalculable because how does one place a monetary value on things like biodiversity, rainfall and this world that we love?Will spending on fighting climate change harm economies?At the beginning of World War Two the world's economies were in poor shape, we were coming out of the Great Depression. Big money had then to be spent on building weapons and the machinery that was needed to fight the war (just as now big money needs to be spent on fighting climate change). The effect then was not a decline in economic activity, but a big rise in economic activity. If the world takes on climate change the result might be a boost in economic health rather than a decline. |
Balanced media coverageReporters like balanced coverage so much that they may give half of their report to a view held by a small minority of the people in question. There are many possible reasons for this, some of them good. However, viewers need to be aware of this tendency. |
|
Home Top Index |
Is climate change happening?Thirty years ago there was some doubt that we were seeing consistent and wide-spread changes to the climate; now even the 'climate change skeptics' agree that the climate is changing, the arguments are to do with the causes.
Causes of anthropogenic climate change
The symptoms of climate change
Have these things happened before?
|
Comparing the argumentsWho are the expertsWhen we have difficulty deciding which side of an argument has the most validity, and we feel we do not have the needed expertise ourselves to make the decision unaided, we often look for advice from an expert.This is called trusting to "ex cathedra" statements - trusting statements because of their source. It is dangerous because the experts in whom we trust can be wrong just us we ourselves can be wrong, but in a complex issue such as climate change what else can we do? Plainly, if we pick the right experts our information is more likely to be good. If you wanted information on visiting Vietnam you wouldn't ask someone who had never gone outside of Australia. If you wanted advice on gardening you wouldn't ask someone who had never planted a seed in his life. It follows that if you want information on climate change you should look to a climatologist, a scientist who specialised in the study of climate, or even better, someone who specialised in the climate change branch of climatology; you wouldn't ask a geologist or a medical doctor. Unfortunately there seems a human tendency to believe that any scientist is an expert on all fields of science, even to believe that anybody who is expert in any field at all is expert in all fields. Some of the 'experts' are very willing to go along with this error - it suits their ideas of their own importance. |
Robinson, Robinson and Soon and the 31 072 scientistsA petition denying that climate change is due to Man's activities was signed by "31072 American Scientists" (strictly speaking US scientists). The home page of the petition project provides a paper written by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon entitled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" as scientific evidence backing the stance behind the petition. The paper was published in a purportedly 'peer-reviewed scientific journal' (the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, OISM).It is noteworthy that the lead author of the paper is one of the main organisers of the petition and the head of OISM, the body that published the paper. Basically, he published his own paper in his own 'scientific journal'! The second author is his son who is also a faculty member of OISM. I looked up the OISM on SourceWatch. The first paragraph of the SourceWatch article: The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.Note that there's nothing there about studies on climate; if you look up the OISM site you will see nothing about expertise on climatology there either. SourceWatch goes on to say of the OISM that The [Institute's] Home Page's current navigation bar lists 8 individuals under the "Faculty" heading. Two of those listed are deceased, and two are sons of OISM's head, Arthur B. Robinson. Yet even though the OISM credentials 8 persons as "Faculty", it has no classrooms, or student body. At the very least you would have to conclude that the source of this 'expert knowledge' is dubious, certainly there are big questions that are unanswered:
Download the papersThe paper, by Robinson, Robinson, and Soon can be downloaded from here. IPCC Technical Paper IV, 2007, on climate change and water can be downloaded here. An analysis of claimed errors in the Robinson et al paper was written by Michael MacCracken and is available from the Climate Science Watch site (the full URL is "http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/ details/maccracken_critique_of_robinson_etal/"). |
|
Home Top Index |
Climate change denialWikipedia has an article on climate change denial, and there is an excellent piece by George Marshal on the psychology of climate change denial on Eco Globe. Marshal wrote:"In the case of climate change, then, we can intellectually accept the evidence of climate change, but we find it extremely hard to accept our responsibility for a crime of such enormity."
I have wondered if Marshal's point, above, is the cause of the 31072 American scientists (actually USA scientists - box at right) who signed a petition denying that climate change is anthropogenic (caused by Man's activities). I suspect the (possibly subconscious) reasoning of this group goes something like this:
"As the impacts of climate change intensify we can therefore anticipate that people will willingly collude in creating collective mechanisms of denial." |
|
Home Top Index |
Most people would consider such behaviour to be reprehensible. Yet that is what most Australians and USians are doing in regard to greenhouse gasses, the cause of anthropogenic (man-made) climate change.
|
When you drive a car that is bigger than you need you are being like the person who eats half the birthday cake. Driving a car at all is probably unsustainable.
Next time you go for a walk and look at a beautiful rural scene consider that in twenty or perhaps less years that scene will have changed due to climate change; the mix of vegetation will be different, probably many exotic plants will dominate the mix because the plants that you are looking at will no longer suit the conditions. Consider also how big a share of the blame for the change you will have to bare because of your present lifestyle.
I love the part of the world I live in and it saddens me to think that my countrymen in particular (Australians) are dumping so much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere that the landscapes I see around me will be forced to change, quite probably to change out of recognition. And the great majority of my countrymen don't seem to care.
We have not yet learned, at a personal level, that the Earth's atmosphere can only handle a limited amount of greenhouse gasses without terrible damage; damage that can not be repaired in decades, probably damage that can never be repaired. Every one of use has a responsibility to limit his/her greenhouse gas production level to something that the Earth can handle. This is a lesson that we must learn quickly.
|
Long ago there were few people on the Earth and the amount of land that each tribe could roam over must have seemed limitless. As the number of people increased, tribes had to learn that the land wasn't limitless, on the edge of 'their' land there were other tribes who had similar demands on the land. They would have gradually learned that if they wanted to avoid conflict they had to share the available land with their neighbours.
|
Home Top Index |
In the modern world we have come to rely on our governments to handle questions such as land boundaries (between individuals and between nations) and sharing the limited amount of available water. We cannot rely on our governments to protect our atmosphere and our climate from our actions. We must, ourselves, set examples and pressure other citizens to cut down on their greenhouse gas production. We need to make greenhouse irresponsibility a shaming matter. Our governments will not act until they perceive that the great majority of voters are serious about wanting action. We don't have the luxury of the necessary time to wait for our governments to getting around to acting.
|
There are two nations who's people produce much more than the average amounts of greenhouse gasses, Australia and the USA. The governments of these same two nations have so far refused to place any substantial limits on the activities of their people and their industries. Australia and the USA are culpable on two counts, they are producing more greenhouse gasses than any other nations (considering population sizes) and they are doing less about controlling their emissions than any of the other major greenhouse gas emitting nations. As both of these nations are democracies the world will rightly hold, not just the governments of the nations, but their people responsible for their selfish use of the atmosphere and the damage that they are doing to the world's climates. (For some figures on the degree of culpability see Australia and climate change responsibility.) Both peoples voted the culpable governments into power full well knowing that they would not accept their ethical responsibilities concerning the atmosphere. (This is the main reason that I am ashamed to be Australian.)
However, as alluded to above, people have become used to their governments handling the fair sharing of limited resources, so you would have to say that Prime Minister John Howard of Australia and President George W. Bush of the USA are the greatest greenhouse criminals on the Earth. They have demonstrated that they are without ethical principles on this, the greatest threat facing the Earth in the twenty-first century. By considering only the short-term good of some of their nation's industries they are taking away the Earth's future more than any other national leaders. In the future all of us in the West today will be held responsible for the colossal damage that we are now doing to the planet, but these two men will deserve a greater part of the blame than any other individuals. (Also see the failings and crimes of Australian governments.)
How can Prime Minister John Howard live with his conscience? I suspect that Howard has been in denial about climate change for so long that now he is getting an inkling of the magnitude of his crime that he is finding it difficult to accept, in his own mind, what Bush and he have done.
The Australian government, Howard in particular, has been to only supporter outside the USA for Bush's irresponsible stand against reducing that country's greenhouse emissions; so Howard, and the Australian Liberal Party, is responsible for more than Australia's contribution to climate change.
|
Home Top Index |
Psychology of climate changeScientific American in January 2008 published an article describing how the USA could develop solar power stations to generate 69% of its electricity and 35% of its total energy by 2050. The authors estimate that this would cost $420 billion dollars in subsidies; the money would have to be spent by 2020, after that date the growth in solar power would be self-sustaining.$420 billion is a lot of money. It's very hard to imagine the US administration deciding to spend that much to significantly reduce the country's greenhouse gas production rates. In September 2008 President George W. Bush is pushing for Congress to release $700 billion dollars to bail-out big American financial institutions. Financial experts agree that the $700 billion will not fix the overall US debt problem, but it might stop an immediate lock-up of the financial system. The worst that could result from not spending the $700 billion - and might result even if it is spent - is that the USA will fall into a depression that could last four or five years (in which case the rest of the world will probably go into a recession for a similar period). The worst that could happen if the US doesn't significantly reduce its greenhouse gas production rates is almost unimaginable environmental disaster that will cause not only financial collapse but also billions of deaths. Since then President Obama has committed similar amounts of money toward fixing the 'economic meltdown'. Why is the US administration willing to spend big to try to fix the financial problem, but not willing to spend big to try to fix the much more serious environmental problem? Neither is sure to solve the problem; but $420 billion, spent wisely over a couple of decades, would certainly go a long way toward reducing the US's terrible level of greenhouse gas production. I am not a psychologist, but the answer seems to be that the one problem is immediate and the other is several decades away; we have not evolved to take seriously any threat that is so far in the future - we have evolved to react quickly to threats that we see in the near future. The trillion dollar bail-outs of the US financial system together with the US administration's failure to act on the much more serious greenhouse has suggested that psychology is of fundamental importance in humanity's response to the latter. One wonders why psychologists don't seem to have been vocal on the greenhouse/climate change problem? It is a great pity that humanity is not able to make decisions on such important matters based more or rationality and less on emotion. |
The following is extracted from a talk by George Marshal, Executive
Director, Climate Outreach Information Network, Oxford UK
|
Denial strategies specific to Climate Change
Our response to climate change is out of proportion to the threat and urgency of the problem. This lack of response cannot be satisfactorily explained as a deficit of information or as a temporary failure in the political and economic system and is not related to an individual's capacity to effect change.
We can observe a profound psychological disconnection between what people
know about climate change and what people do about climate change
Failure of the "risk thermostat"
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Home Top Index |
|
As the sea levels rise coastal mangroves will be flooded.
During the many past sea level changes in the world as it was,
this would not have been a great problem to the
mangroves; they would have gradually 'migrated' to higher ground with
the rising sea levels.
In much of the world as it is the mangroves will not be able to migrate,
humans will have taken over the land into which the mangroves will need
to move.
They will be killed by flooding on the low ground and unable to advance
into higher ground.
Mangroves and mangrove swamps have been shown to be very valuable as nursery grounds for many marine species. Loss of many of the world's mangroves will have far reaching environmental effects. I suspect the synergies of the changes that are happening to the earth due to climate change will surprise us. |
|
Home Top Index |
|
The following sites provide informed comment on climate change science.
The Global Warming Debate: A Layman's Guide to the Science and Controversy. Real Climate: "Climate science from climate scientists" Skeptical Science: Examining the science of global warming skepticism. Climate Debate Daily: A new way to understand disputes about global warming. Global Warming Clearinghouse: A single source for contemporary key reports, articles, papers, and Blogs referencing the latest information available on Global Warming. Climate Science Watch: Climate Science Watch is a non-profit public interest education and advocacy project dedicated to holding public officials accountable for the integrity and effectiveness with which they use climate science and related research in government policymaking, toward the goal of enabling society to respond effectively to the challenges posed by global warming and climate change. NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Global Climate Change; Global Climate Change Key Indicators. An interesing source on coral reefs and problems they have with climate change is the Global Coral Reef Alliance. Plimer vs Monbiot. Ian Plimer's book, Heaven and Earth: Global Warming – The Missing Science, as the title suggests, rubbishes climate change science. The link above gives a sequence of emails in which George Monbiot and ian Plimer discuss Plimer's claims and Monbiot's criticisms. |
|
Home Top |
IndexOn this page...31072 American Scientists deny climate change Balanced media coverage Climate change Climate change denial Comparing the arguments Cost of climate change Ethics of climate change Introduction Is climate change happening? Links Loss of mangroves Marshal on climate change denial Precautionary principle Psychology of climate change Robinson, Robinson and Soon Top Who are the experts? Will spending on fighting climate change harm economies? |
Work under way in this area
