In my last post, I tried to emphasize the difference between the evolution and climate change debates. I made a joke about god being less easily measured than sea ice. I was mostly trying to emphasize that we ought to all be able to come to a basic agreement about the plain facts that are relevant to the climate change debate, so the comparison to a theological debate was a bit of a throwaway comment.
In the climate change debate, the issue is whether anthropogenic factors can explain most or all of the observed climate fluctuations. Are there hidden factors that should be considered? In the evolution debate, the issue is whether Darwinian mechanisms can explain the observed variety of species from a primordial starting point. Or is there a hidden factor such as a biblical-style creator god?
My throwaway comment made the mistake of presuming that the existence of god is a defining issue when debating evolution. This is of course not the case, given that there are loads of Christians and other theists who embrace evolution, several of whom do me the honour of regularly reading this blog. There is of course yet another debate, the most fundamental one of all, in which the question is, whether a scientific view of the world can potentially explain everything, and if not, what kind of hidden factor should one add in to the model?
Both the evolution and climate change debates revolve around a set of observations that have been made in the present and near past and include the interpretation of records that stretch way way back into geologic time. In the case of evolution, these ancient records are fossils and also the genetic record. In the case of climate change, the ancient records are the isotopic concentrations of bubbles of gas trapped at various depths in the cores of ice that are brought to the surface.
All scientists know that extrapolating even a relatively simple graph beyond the range of actual measurements can be extremely dangerous. In the case of evolution, it is not a graph that is being extrapolated but a fundamental principle of how living organisms change over time. So if there is adequate evidence that this principle operates over some observable time-scale, the simplest explanation is that this principle operated all the way back. This does not rule out the possibility that some radically different mechanism may have operated at some earlier, unobserved time. But for someone proposing another scenario, the onus is on them to find supporting evidence.
Climate depends on numerous factors. Unlike evolutionary theory, climate change science is not about a simple principle. It is all in the details: specifically, whether the recently observed changes are attributable in large part to human activity. We all know that there have been some huge climate changes that occurred on this planet way before living organisms started to pump massive amounts of oxygen into the atmosphere, let alone before humans found all that organic matter and gave it the chance to release its rightful contribution of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We also know that life itself is capable of having a profound influence on the composition of the atmosphere: the presence of oxygen being the obvious example.
Apart from the apparent seriousness of the climate change debate, it's a fascinating situation in terms of assessing the credibility of scientists' claims. On the one hand, the doubters do have a point: when you look back at past records of scientists' attempts to extrapolate into the future, they have often overlooked other perhaps hidden factors that become the dominant aspects of the issue over time. Some explanations we accept far more readily than others. When we are told that certain species of fish are disappearing from our oceans, nobody denies that it is due to anthropogenic overfishing. But when we see the loss in sea ice over a roughly equivalent period of time, we are understandably not so sure. We know that humans can dramatically impact global aspects of the biosphere, but we expect the earth's climate to be more resilient, especially with respect to something as ubiquitous as carbon dioxide.
Frankly, I know relatively little solid information about climate change science, and I am hoping to thoroughly educate myself in this area over the next year or so. Even when I have a certain gut belief in something, I like to approach it as a skeptic. I believe that is what science is all about. So I hope to bring some critical appraisals of climate change science over the next few months.
Happy New Year
6 hours ago
3 comments:
For me, I determine my skepticism for two different factors: first, what does the preponderance of evidence say? Scientists from many walks of life and effectively all science organizations are all in agreement on anthropomorphic climate change.
Secondly, I like at the repercussions. If we reduce our carbon output, use energy more efficiently, use renewable sources that have effectively no pollution, what's the down side? Even if we're wrong about global warming, aren't we STILL better off reducing reliance on fossil fuels, doesn't that remove the political incentive to befriend and/or attack certain nations? Doesn't that help reduce certain areas of power (and, I might add, OPEC nations are investing in green technologies like mad).
And, if we're RIGHT about global warming, our hemming and hawing because we don't want to take baby steps now instead of costly huge steps later - we'll pay for it, but who will pay the most? Those least likely to (a) have contributed and (b) bounce back.
True, the earth can survive no matter what we do it - but we may not be on it or may not be the factor we were. Maybe it survives by killing us off.
Makes me wonder if there ever was life on Venus that said, "No sense worrying about carbon dioxide. Our planet is resilient!"
Yeah, I agree with you - especially as we're going to run out of oil and gas down the road anyway. I think it's hard to motivate people to make real changes unless there is a sense of urgency, though. Politically, I think the problem is that planning for the future and persuading everyone to make "sacrifices" really is more associated with a centralized government, which naturally threatens those on the right. But of course, if individual "consumers" really did buy in to environmentalism en masse, then the changes themselves could occur very effectively within a regular market system.
It's a pleasure to visit again. This time I was especially drawn to your statement about the "most fundamental" question of all: "whether a scientific view of the world can potentially explain everything, and if not, what kind of hidden factor should one add in to the model?" My view is that science can explain much, but not all, and that science-embracing religion (even more rare than science-friendly forms) is the missing component.
Post a Comment