Conflicting Claims About Environmental Problems: A Primer For Non-Scientists - Part 2
August 21, 2008
This post originally appeared in Creation Care Magazine. This is part 2 of 2. Part 1 appears here.
General Advice on Sorting Through Competing Claims
Avoid extremists
Two U.K. scientists, Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, recently chided other scientists for making what they felt were exaggerated claims about global warming’s effects (Ghosh 2007). Hardaker and Collier believe that global warming is real and that exaggerating its effects will cause people to disbelieve the whole thing. I agree that that is a likely result of exaggeration. Exaggeration is sometimes promoted by the non-scientific media.
To avoid exaggerated claims, avoid getting information from the most polarized groups, the least scientific groups, or those with a clear ideological bent.
Look for people expressing levels of scientific uncertainty and moderate positions. The best thing to do is look at the mainstream science, including group statements by professional societies, and not at popular books, television shows, newspaper editorials, or web sites. If you do use web sites, look for those associated with reputable professional societies and avoid those run by private individuals or groups with an obvious bias.
Remember that when there is a scientific question with two sides, there are likely to be people on BOTH sides who exaggerate. Even if one side is actually correct, some people on that side are likely to be extremists. To sort out the truth, gather your information from those who are the least over-simplifying and the most willing to explain their reasoning. Avoid conspiracy theorists.
For example, climate change skeptic Arthur Robinson claims:
The human-caused global warming myth is not only ridiculously bad science;
It is basically a pagan, New Age effort to reduce world population by withdrawal of technology—an activity that no Christian should associate himself with. (Robinson 2000)
On the other hand, Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe says, “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers” (Goodman 2007).
The strong language used by both of these individuals will not help anyone figure out whether climate change is actually occurring; instead they will further polarize the debate.
Get more information
Sometimes, even if you are an expert, you have to get more information. For example, in 1988 NASA scientist James Hansen testified before Congress about climate change. (Hansen et al 1988, Hansen 2004). Hansen showed a graph of three possible climate change scenarios calculated using then-current models. This graph was criticized by a number of skeptics, particularly Patrick Michaels, who claimed that Hansen’s numbers were wrong (Michaels 1998, Pease 2005). But Michaels had removed two of the lines on the graph and left only the most extreme values on the third line. The actual observed trend in the intervening years had tracked well with the second of the lines on the original graph. This misrepresentation of Hansen’s work was repeated in Michael Crichton’s popular novel, State of Fear (Crichton 2004). Hansen wrote a rebuttal, describing the graph and how it was misrepresented (Hansen 2004), but the popularity of the novel and claims on the web left many people wondering about the graph’s accuracy.
Another example was that of the famous “hockey stick graph” created by Mann et al. (1998) and used in an IPCC report. This graph was criticized for smoothing out past variations in temperature (McIntyre and McKitrick 2005). However, subsequent analysis of the graph statistics by the National Research Council (NRC) showed that while there were errors in the original statistical techniques, the results were robust. Thus even when the statistics were recalculated with modifications, the findings were upheld (Brumfiel 2006, NRC 2006).
It may be difficult to follow all of the threads in such a “he said/ she said” debate. But the point is that some scientists do not present the actual work of other scientists who may have been very careful not to avoid extremism. Often the original scientists will speak out about it.
Don’t confuse the science of the problem with concerns about proposed solutions
There is a great deal of disagreement over the magnitude of the effects of global warming and what solutions should be attempted. Scientists estimate that climate change will help some sectors of the economy, such as shipping in the far north, and some northern places where agriculture may increase. But most scientists believe that it will harm even larger numbers of people than it benefits (IPCC 2001 b, NAS 2007). Global climate change will likely increase severe events such as storms, droughts and floods. It has already begun to affect organisms and weather patterns. A warmer-than-usual winter in China in 2006-2007 left 300,000 people short of water (AFP 2007). Whether this particular event is due to global climate change or not, climate change would certainly be expected to bring that type of outcome in the future. At this point, moderate positions include concerns about significant impacts on precipitation patterns, crop yields, ice, biodiversity, and El Nino events.
Some climate skeptics claim to be skeptics of the whole phenomenon because they do not think it will be worth the “billions of dollars” that will be required to stop it. This reluctance to accept a problem because of the cost of solutions has been expressed with regard to previous environmental issues, including when environmentalists suggested lowering CFC use or removing phosphates from detergents. Today, while there is a robust debate about how much money is needed to stop global warming, here are some things we know:
• We will not develop solutions to a problem until we recognize that the problem is real.
• We do not address only one problem at a time. Some of the possible solutions to global warming involve changes that would also lower local air pollution or improve distributive justice.
• Some actions, such as generating less waste, may save money
Thus it is disingenuous to be skeptical of climate change itself because one has already decided the costs of solutions are too high. We must do what we can, and advocate for what is most easily done first, but we need to at least agree on the science of the problem and then address the issue of its solutions.
Empowered with this information and the capacity for discerning truth in controversial environmental debates, Christians with a lay understanding of scientific issues—like the members in my Sunday school—will be better equipped to take an educated approach to stewardship over God’s creation.
This is part 2 of 2. Part 1 appears here.
Dr. Dorothy Boorse is an aquatic ecologist and Biology Department faculty member at Gordon College in Wenham, MA. She is one voice in the christian environmental stewardship movement and lives with her husband and two sons in Beverly, MA.
Comments
One Response to “Conflicting Claims About Environmental Problems: A Primer For Non-Scientists - Part 2”
Got something to say?
[…] This post originally appeared in Creation Care Magazine. This is part 1 of 2. Part 1 appeared here. […]