Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Middle Stance Emerges in Debate Over Climate

Expand Messages
  • binstock@peakpeak.com
    The new posture of pseudo-conservatism? - - - - January 1, 2007 Middle Stance Emerges in Debate Over Climate By ANDREW C. REVKIN
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      The new posture of pseudo-conservatism?

      - - - -

      January 1, 2007

      Middle Stance Emerges in Debate Over Climate

      By ANDREW C. REVKIN
      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/01/science/01climate.html


      Amid the shouting lately about whether global warming is a human-caused
      catastrophe or a hoax, some usually staid climate scientists in the
      usually invisible middle are speaking up.

      The discourse over the issue has been feverish since Hurricane Katrina.
      Seizing the moment, many environmental campaigners, former Vice President
      Al Gore and some scientists have portrayed the growing human influence on
      the climate as an unfolding disaster that is already measurably
      strengthening hurricanes, spreading diseases and amplifying recent
      droughts and deluges.

      Conservative politicians and a few scientists, many with ties to energy
      companies, have variously countered that human-driven warming is
      inconsequential, unproved or a manufactured crisis.

      A third stance is now emerging, espoused by many experts who challenge
      both poles of the debate.

      They agree that accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping
      smokestack and tailpipe gases probably pose a momentous environmental
      challenge, but say the appropriate response is more akin to buying fire
      insurance and installing sprinklers and new wiring in an old,
      irreplaceable house (the home planet) than to fighting a fire already raging.

      “Climate change presents a very real risk,” said Carl Wunsch, a climate
      and oceans expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “It seems
      worth a very large premium to insure ourselves against the most
      catastrophic scenarios. Denying the risk seems utterly stupid. Claiming we
      can calculate the probabilities with any degree of skill seems equally
      stupid.”

      Many in this camp seek a policy of reducing vulnerability to all climate
      extremes while building public support for a sustained shift to
      nonpolluting energy sources.

      They have made their voices heard in Web logs, news media interviews and
      at least one statement from a large scientific group, the World
      Meteorological Organization. In early December, that group posted a
      statement written by a committee consisting of most of the climatologists
      assessing whether warming seas have affected hurricanes.

      While each degree of warming of tropical oceans is likely to intensify
      such storms a percentage point or two in the future, they said, there is
      no firm evidence of a heat-triggered strengthening in storms in recent
      years. The experts added that the recent increase in the impact of storms
      was because of more people getting in harm’s way, not stronger storms.

      There are enough experts holding such views that Roger A. Pielke Jr., a
      political scientist and blogger at the University of Colorado, Boulder,
      came up with a name for them (and himself): “nonskeptical heretics.”

      “A lot of people have independently come to the same sort of conclusion,”
      Dr. Pielke said. “We do have a problem, we do need to act, but what
      actions are practical and pragmatic?”

      This approach was most publicly laid out in an opinion article on the BBC
      Web site in November by Mike Hulme, the director of the Tyndall Center for
      Climate Change Research in Britain.

      Dr. Hulme said that shrill voices crying doom could paralyze instead of
      inspire.

      “I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners
      when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not
      satisfied their thirst for environmental drama,” he wrote. “I believe
      climate change is real, must be faced and action taken. But the discourse
      of catastrophe is in danger of tipping society onto a negative, depressive
      and reactionary trajectory.”

      Other experts say there is no time for nuance, given the general lack of
      public response to the threat posed particularly by carbon dioxide, a
      byproduct of burning fossil fuels and forests that persists for a century
      or more in the air and is accumulating rapidly in the atmosphere and
      changing the pH of the oceans.

      James E. Hansen, the veteran climate scientist with the National
      Aeronautics and Space Administration who has spoken out about climate
      dangers since 1988, has recently said that scientists have been too quiet
      too long.

      “If we want to avoid producing a different planet, we need to start acting
      now,” and not with paltry steps, he said in a recent e-mail exchange with
      a reporter and other scientists. “It seems almost to be a secret that we
      cannot put all of the fossil-fuel CO2 into the air without producing a
      different planet, and yes, dangerous change. There are people who don’t
      know that!”

      Debate among scientists over how to describe the climate threat is
      particularly intense right now as experts work on the final language in
      portions of the latest assessment of global warming by the
      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

      In three previous reports, the last published in 2001, this global network
      of scientists operating under the auspices of the United Nations has
      presented an ever-firmer picture of a growing human role in warming.

      Studies used to generate the next report (portions are to be issued in
      February) have shown a likely warming in the 21st century — unless
      emissions of greenhouse gases abate — at least several times that of the
      last century’s one-degree rise.

      But substantial uncertainty still clouds projections of important impacts,
      like how high and quickly seas would rise as ice sheets thawed.

      Recent drafts of the climate report used a conservative analysis that does
      not project a rise most people would equate with catastrophe, scientists
      involved in writing it say. Other experts say this may send too comforting
      a message.

      Dr. Hulme insists that it is best not to gloss over uncertainties.

      In fact, he and other experts say that uncertainty is one reason to act —
      as a hedge against the prospect that problems could be much worse than
      projected.

      His goal, Dr. Hulme said, is to raise public appreciation of the
      unprecedented scale and nature of the challenge.

      “Climate change is not a problem waiting for a solution (least of all a
      solution delivered and packaged by science), but a powerful idea that will
      transform the way we develop,” he said in an e-mail message.

      Dr. Hulme and others avoid sounding alarmist, but offer scant comfort to
      anyone who doubts that humans are contributing to warming or believes the
      matter can be deferred.

      These experts see a clear need for the public to engage now, but not to
      panic. They worry that portrayals of the issue like that in “An
      Inconvenient Truth,” the documentary focused on the views of Mr. Gore, may
      push too hard.

      Many in this group also see a need to portray clearly that the response
      would require far more than switching to fluorescent light bulbs and to
      hybrid cars.

      “This is a mega-ethical challenge,” said Jerry D. Mahlman, a climatologist
      at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who has
      studied global warming for more than three decades. “In space, it’s the
      size of a planet, and in time, it has scales far broader than what we
      go-go Homo sapiens are accustomed to dealing with.”

      Dr. Mahlman and others say that the buildup of carbon dioxide and other
      greenhouse gases cannot be quickly reversed with existing technologies.
      And even if every engine on earth were shut down today, they add, there
      would be no measurable impact on the warming rate for many years, given
      the buildup of heat already banked in the seas.

      Because of the scale and time lag, a better strategy, Dr. Mahlman and
      others say, is to treat human-caused warming more as a risk to be reduced
      than a problem to be solved.

      These experts also say efforts to attribute recent weather extremes to the
      climate trend, though they may generate headlines in the short run,
      distract from the real reasons to act, which relate more to the long-term
      relationship of people and the planet.

      “Global warming is real, it’s serious, but it’s just one of many global
      challenges that we’re facing,” said John M. Wallace, a climatologist at
      the University of Washington. “I portray it as part of a broader problem
      of environmental stewardship — preserving a livable planet with abundant
      resources for future generations.”

      Some experts, though, argue that moderation in a message is likely to be
      misread as satisfaction with the pace of change.

      John P. Holdren, an energy and environment expert at Harvard and president
      of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, defended the
      more strident calls for limits on carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping
      gases.

      “I am one of those who believes that any reasonably comprehensive and
      up-to-date look at the evidence makes clear that civilization has already
      generated dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system,” Dr.
      Holdren said. “What keeps me going is my belief that there is still a
      chance of avoiding catastrophe.”

      *

      The material in this post is distributed without
      profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
      in receiving the included information for research
      and educational purposes.For more information go to:
      http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
      http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htm
      If you wish to use copyrighted material from this
      email for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you
      must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.