What would it take to convince some people of the realities of global warming?
Back in the '70s, scientists started finding evidence that the average temperature of the planet was changing. Most of the evidence suggested the world was getting warmer but fluctuating temperatures made the picture unclear. Some people, mostly non-scientists, argued for the opposite conclusion, that fluctuating temperatures might instead mean the planet was headed for another Ice Age. They called for more data to prove it was global warming.
Scientific data continued to accumulate and by the '90s, the evidence made it pretty clear that the globe was warming. Now the argument against the growing scientific evidence became that while the planet might be getting warmer, it might be a natural phenomenon, and that there was no reason to think man's activities were the cause. Again, opponents of the idea of global warming called for more data, this time to prove mankind was the primary cause.
With the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's survey of the scientific evidence of global warming early this year, we now have not only sufficient data that global warming is happening but that the most likely cause is human activity. How do global warming doubters respond? They now say global warming is a "hoax," and that essentially all scientists are lying about it.
Does it seem reasonable that there is a wide-spread conspiracy among scientists to manufacture false data on global warming? That all scientists are liars?
One wonders how many of those who consistently resist the facts on global warming maintain the same suspicion on other scientific research. Is cancer a hoax? Is your doctor just looking for money if he gives you that diagnosis? Are you willing to take that chance?
Up to recently, the arguments against global warming have sounded like the arguments of tobacco companies about cigarettes and cancer, as several people have pointed out. The arguments against the realities of global warming often originated in "think tanks" funded by oil and other energy companies whose profits would be negatively impacted if we try to reduce greenhouse gases contributing to global warming. But the "hoax" idea goes beyond what even the tobacco companies claimed.
If coal and oil industry-back groups say global warming is a "hoax," are we expected to believe them? Ironically, one of the arguments of the "hoax" is that scientists stand to profit if they "convince us that global warming is real." On the other hand, we should not suspect the motives of oil and coal companies.
There are a number of problems with the "hoax" idea but a big one is the assertion that scientists are lying about global warming because they will profit from it. One major flaw with that idea: whether scientists say global warming is happening or not, they still get paid. There is no shortage of scientific work, and the only risk is if they were to, say, falsify data.
Some global warming opponents argue that government pressures scientists to say global warming is real. The evidence points to the opposite: several government scientists have resigned due to administration pressure to take out or dilute findings pointing to global warming.
Scientists by nature are cautious in their conclusions, even conservative. Scientific papers never conclude with absolute certainty; it is all probabilities, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. So it is not a casual thing if a study suggests that something is very probably the cause of an effect.
The scientific evidence on global warming is more certain than the general public assumes. Often, the general public is playing catch-up on the facts.
Those who deny global warming like to point to old evidence, years out of date, but scientists only use the most current accumulation of data. The recent IPCC report on climate change said there was more than 90 percent certainty that mankind was the primary cause of global warming. In scientific terms, that is pretty certain.
Certain enough not to risk inaction, and lose what window of opportunity we have to head off catastrophic climate change. Here are some facts from the IPCC report summary. "Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years."
Human activities are the source of these increases, according to the report. "The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.
"The report cites carbon dioxide as the most important human-generated greenhouse gas and further states "The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm (parts per million) to 379 ppm in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores."
And the problem is growing. "The annual carbon dioxide concentration growth-rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995 - 2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960 - 2005 average: 1.4 ppm per year) although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates.
The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land use change providing another significant but smaller contribution.
Annual fossil carbon dioxide emissions increased from an average of 6.4 per year in the 1990s, to 7.2 per year in 2000-2005."
Pretending all scientists are liars won't change the facts. But the world can no longer wait for the last skeptic to be convinced before we address this crisis.
Be the first to comment on this article!