Climate Change: Science or Politics?

Are human beings, through the emission of greenhouse gases, causing the climate to significantly warm up? This is a scientific question. But if you want to guess a person’s point of view on the issue, there is no need to have a scientific discussion. Few of us, after all, have any in-depth understanding of climate science. Instead, you can just ask a few questions that will help determine that person’s political ideology. Because for most people, climate change is primarily a political issue. Conservatives are generally less concerned about climate change than liberals, and it has little to do with science.

There has clearly been a disconnect in recent years between the conclusions of scientists and the opinions of the general American population. Multiple polls indicate that Americans are becoming increasingly skeptical about the reality and/or the potential threat of global warming. But at the same time that these doubts have grown, most scientists argue that there is increasing evidence that climate change is real and dangerous. Some of this public skepticism is a reflection of the struggling economy and of the recent political fortunes of each political party. People are concerned about the potential economic impact of environmental regulations, and the more environmentalist Democratic Party has borne the brunt of much of the public’s anger lately.

But if you are able to move beyond climate change skeptics’ anger and/or political ideology and focus on the scientific issue, the skeptics’ will be forced to accept at least one of the following conclusions:

1) Most of the scientists have made an honest mistake. They are human after all, and scientists on many occasions have made new discoveries that discredited earlier scientific conclusions. The problem with this premise is that the scientific method is a self-correcting mechanism. As theories are put to the test over time, conclusions will move closer to the truth. And since scientists have been conducting climate studies for several decades now, and scientists in general have a good track record for developing ideas that have helped transform the world, it would be surprising if so many were completely wrong. Of course, scientists disagree amongst themselves about the scope and impact of climate change, so there are clearly a lot of things that they do not yet understand.

2) Scientists are engaged in either an honest or dishonest conspiracy. Honest conspiracy? Now there is a classic oxymoron. But let me try to explain. In science, as in politics and religion, ideas that start as theories can over time become established orthodoxy. Then, once people have completely digested the prevailing paradigm, it can become difficult or even impossible to think “out of the box.” And even if you find the strength and insight to think in an unorthodox fashion, peer pressure from other members of the field might keep you in check. Much of this can be subconscious, and scientists may be convinced that they are doing the right thing. Of course, if you buy into this premise, you still have to explain how the global warming theory became the established orthodoxy in the first place.

Of course, there is also the possibility that scientists are not acting in good faith. Maybe the scientific powers that be are engaged in some sort of a conscious conspiracy designed to push an environmentalist agenda. Maybe they just love trees, hate oil companies, want to save spotted owls, or are generally hostile toward a modern industrial society that snuffs out their hippy dreams. So they concocted this climate change theory in order to scare the hell out of people and create the kind of world that they want. Or, then again, maybe scaring people about global warming is simply a great way to attract research dollars to further study this huge “problem.” Whatever the case, maybe these scientists, along with their hippy supporters and benefactors, simply cannot be trusted. The problem with this conspiracy theory, like most conspiracy theories, is the assumption that there is some entity called the “powers that be” that is sitting up on high pushing a single, coherent agenda. Climate scientists are individuals who are scattered throughout the planet and have various, personal motivations. There may be some bad apples, but I find it hard to believe that most have joined up in some evil, centrally directed conspiracy. It is also important to keep in mind that environmentalists have their own conspiracy theories. The fossil fuel industry has a huge investment in the status quo, and it has far more resources and motivation than scientists to shape public opinion to promote its interests.

3) There are large numbers of scientists who question the reality or threat of climate change, but the liberal media either discredits or ignores them. So when we hear polls indicating that almost all climate scientists accept the climate change premise, we should take this information with a grain of salt. To a certain degree, I find this idea plausible. I have heard or read a few stories over the years about scientists who argue that factors other than greenhouse gases have a much more significant impact on the climate, factors such as solar activity, volcanism, or the tilt of the earth.  It is also generally known that climate has fluctuated widely throughout the history of the earth, and since most of these changes occurred long before humans either existed or were in a position to emit lots of greenhouse gases, it is clear that multiple forces may be involved in shaping weather patterns. Of course, the fact that I am aware of these alternative explanations for climate change indicates that the “liberal” media is not doing a great job of controlling information. Still, I hear a lot more about the scientists who accept the climate change premise than those who do not, and I cannot say for sure if this is the result of a liberal media bias or the scientific reality.

So what is a non-scientist like me to do? Like most Americans, I can adopt the beliefs about climate change that are the most consistent with my political ideology. I know, however, that this is foolish. As I said before, this is a scientific issue, not a political one. The logical thing, therefore, is to pour over the scientific data. The problem with that, however, is that it takes an enormous amount of time and technical expertise. With so many important issues in the world, how much time do I have to invest in understanding just this one? Plus, I don’t know which data to trust. Climate statistics, like all statistics, can be manipulated by those with an agenda to push. And even if we lived in a perfect world with nothing but data that was conscientiously collected and presented, even the experts admit that there are many things that they cannot say for sure.

In the end, I hope that those who reject the idea of human induced climate change are right. China and India, the most populated countries on earth, nations that are growing economically at a remarkable rate, will be spewing out greenhouse gases like there is no tomorrow for years to come. The same can be said of other underdeveloped nations, countries where immediate economic growth will take precedent over preventing future climate change. The United States, given the current makeup of its leadership, will not be doing anything significant about carbon emissions any time soon. And given American public opinion polls, politicians have little incentive to push a skeptical public to accept policies that will involve some major sacrifices.

There are heavy potential costs involved for both action and inaction. Reducing carbon emissions in a significant way will cause immediate, short-term pain, and there is a possibility that this will do little or nothing to affect the climate. But if global warming is a reality, the consequences will develop gradually, and they might not be clear until decades from now. And if the doomsayers are right, the results could be catastrophic for future generations. If you were a politician thinking about the next election, what would you do? If you are a voter, what type of potential pain will you choose?