First of all ... the globe is warming. The fundamental debate: Is it manmade or natural. Put that aside. It is in our interests that we use technologies that will not only clean the air, but make us less dependent on oil. That's what I said in my State of the Union the other day. I said, look -- and I know it came as quite a shock to -- for people to hear a Texan stand up and say, we've got a national problem, we're addicted to oil. But I meant what I said.Note that he does not argue scientific uncertainty anymore --- this is quite a departure from his statements in 2001.
I wonder why he wants us to ignore the question of whether our present-day warming is manmade or not. It seems that this is a fundamental question and our response to the present day warming will depend on the answer. If today's warming is mainly the result of human activities, then that suggests an emphasis on mitigation and adaptation, while if it's not related to human activities, then there should be more of an emphsis on adaptation alone.
The only reason I can think that the President says "let's put that aside" is that he knows a signficant portion of the recent warming IS manmade. At present, the Administration NEVER EVER even mentions the possibility that greenhouse-gas emissions reductions might be something we need to do. That position becomes much more difficult to maintain if the Administration admits that humans are contributing to today's warming.
8 comments:
Bush is not the only one who has no interest in knowing (or more precisely, "an interest in NOT knowing"**) how much of the recent warming is manmade.
Companies like Exxon-Mobil also have the same vested interest (surprise, suprise).
The greater the uncertainty in the science, the better, as far as they are concerned.
**In practical terms, "An interest in NOT knowing" actually translates to "an interest in having the public NOT know", which is the basic "theme" of the Bush Presidency, summed up by
Bush's Uncertainty Principle
delta_science x delta_politics >= W/2pi
where "W" is Dubya's constant (of course)
Here's what it means:
The better the politics is "known" (ie, controlled) by White House, Congress, FOX news, etc, the smaller is "delta_politics" and hence the larger is "delta_science" (at least in the public mind)
(or so Karl Rove undoubtedly theologizes)
Note: nailing down the actual value for Dubya's constant is turning out to be about as difficult as finding WMD in Iraq, but the "Bush uncertainty Principle"** is nonetheless useful from a practical standpoint, even if we don't know its actual value.
I'm sure there is a Nobel Prize in the offing for anyone who does nail it down.
**There is an alternate form to the Bush uncertainty Principle given in the first post:
delta_Bush * delta_world >= W/2pi
Or, in words, the more certain Bush is (in his own mind) about something*, the more uncertain (and chaotic) the world becomes.
"I can't think of any mistakes I have made" - GWB
Andrew,
Welcome to the world of blogging! I wish you much success in generating serious thought and commentary on global climate change.
You stated that if the warming is mostly man-made that we humans should try to mitigate our influence on climate as well as adapt to possible changes, but if it is mostly natural, we should just try to adapt.
I believe you are expressing a mainstream view, but I have never thought it a rational one. If climate change is bad (an assumption I don't accept), should we not attempt to mitigate it, no matter what the cause?
Your argument is akin to suggesting that if you accidentally start a fire in your house, you should put it out; but if your house catches fire from a lighning strike, then let it burn and adapt to being homeless!
If your house is burning down around you, is it not rather silly to assign levels of morality of the possible ignition sources before deciding a course of action?
While it is intellectually easy to claim a 1 degree human induced warming as morally wrong, while a 1 degree 'natural' warming as morally neutral, there is no rational or scientific basis for doing so. This tendency is simply part of our cultural mindset that appears to be based on an ever growing sense of cultural guilt.
Granted, taking the morality out of the climate change debate demands answers to some very serious, and propably unanswerable questions, before we can proceed. Questions like: What is the best average temperature for planet Earth? Should we strive for a 'stable' climate, or would that lead to catastrophic, unintended consequences, like a dwindling robustness in the entire biosphere?
Most assurdly, those arguing for a reduction in CO2 emissions based in part on a moral issue, would argue against humans mitigating a 'natural' warming of similar magnitude on the same grounds. This indicates that it is not the warming that is the problem, but humanities sinfullness against Gaia, whatever that is percieved to be.
Since I do not believe we humans can effectively control global climate, I would argue that we should focus on adaptation and real vulnerability issues. We should also pursue increased efficiency and cost effective alternative energy sources, because that's what we should always be doing whether the climate is changing or not.
Jim-
Thanks for your comments. My statements about mitigation vs. adaptation stem from a practical rather than moral view. If climate change is natural, then we have little opportunity to mitigate it. We simply cannot control things like the sun or coupled atmosphere-ocean modes like ENSO. Our only response to natural changes is adaptation. If the climate change is due to human activities, however, then we can modify those activities to mitigate.
Regards.
In answer to Jim Clarke and ed: I think there is another practical reason in additon to the one Andrew mentioned why we need to be more concerned about man-made vs. natural warming. Namely, there is no known mechanism that would lead to the sort of warming (2.5 to 10 F by 2100) that is predicted due to anthropogenic effects. Indeed, I believe even the bottom end of that range would bring us at or above the highest level that has been seen in the last several interglacial cycles.
This idea that there may be some sort of dramatic warming over the next century or so that is not caused by humans is an idea that has no support whatsoever. As such, I don't really see the need to consider how we should deal with a problem that is not a very realistic possibility. Better to focus on the very real possibility that anthropogenic effects will lead to such a dramatic warming.
Ed:
So, we can't be certain about anything 100 years out, but you are nonetheless quite certain that "mcgw [AGW] is hall of mirrored predictions and echoing prophecies of doom", right?
No contradiction there.
There are many things that can be accurately predicted 100 and more years from now including the postion of the planets as one example. There are other things which one can predict well enough to form a basis for action, climate change for example.
How can it be possible that Global warming might be man-made, but at the same time "If climate change is natural, then we have little opportunity to mitigate it. We simply cannot control things like the sun or coupled atmosphere-ocean modes like ENSO." If it's possible that we could cause it, doesn't it follow that we could mitigate it?
Post a Comment