Pass the Turkey and Some Skepticism

The following is an email conversation between my Dad and I--its a brief summary of our back and forth over the issue of climate change, but our talks this weekend covered everything from climate change to politics to retirement. The most interesting (and least argumentative) parts of these talks, though, came when I used some of the terms from class, such as the tragedy of the commons and the prisoner's dilemma, and my Dad was able to relate these abstract terms to experiences in the real world and talk about how they function in his everyday life in the healthcare industry--none of that made it into this email conversation, but at any rate, these emails can give you a small idea of what I spent my weekend "battling" against when it came to politics and environmental issues:

Dad:

There are a few problems in the current global warming theory. I will try to outline them for you with the following thoughts:

First of all the current trend of climate change does not take into account any natural cyclical changes which may be occurring over thousands or millions of years in the natural evolution of our planet. For example, how does the current theory explain the ice age periods and then the retreat of the glaciers without man contaminating the environment with carbon from fossil fuels? How do we know that the current warming trend is not merely part of a continuing cycle of a natural evolutionary process?

Next, the scientific model is difficult to apply without an adequate control process involved in the equation. In other words, the influence of man in the environment is difficult to isolate due to the multitude of variables involved. We must therefore make assumptions which are difficult to either prove or disprove. If the CO2 level was the only variable, the current argument would be more plausible.

Finally, the assumptions concerning previous cyclical changes to the earth's environment are merely our best efforts to explain a process not fully understood. For example we make statements such as a catastrophic event occurred to alter the earth's environment. This event may have been a massive meteorite or a huge volcanic eruption to alter the particulate count in the atmosphere. If we can not fully explain these processes with certainty, then we can not explain the natural variability in the processes.

Due to the above listed reasons, it is difficult for me to believe that the current climate changes are strictly related to the increasing CO2 levels and man's influence on the environment.

Me:

I think you bring up several good points here on why the science behind climate change theory seems a bit lacking--and I think you'll find that your reservations are shared with a lot of skeptics out there as well. There are, however, a few counter points that I would like to bring to your attention--if not necessarily to convince you of the threat of global climate change, then to at least to get you to take another look at this issue and its more recent developments.

First of all, since I know you are a man of science, I think you would be surprised to know that the science behind this issue is actually a pretty closed subject: 98% of all climate scientists (and most scientists from other disciplines) are confident in the science behind this theory, and, what is more, they are positive that humans are driving this warming trend. You are right, climate change has occurred in the past without the influence of humans, but the next step you take in your argument is a bit flawed. Of course natural cycles of warming and cooling occur, and the world today is going to continue in that cycle...only this time with a more than doubled concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. In your argument you say that you hesitate over science's ability to isolate variables in this equation, and what I would respond with is this: that those other variables are negligible. Solar intensity fluctuation, volcanic activity, el nino, etc, have all been considered in the equation, these are actually psuedo-controls because although they vary, the fact that they vary over time is the same--what is new in this equation is the unprecedented amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. In other words, these other variable, or pseudo-controls, are comparable to the fluctuations of the past--climate change science recognizes these other measurable variables and they can record their influences and contributions to the warming and cooling trends, but again, what is different about this warming trend is our CO2 levels.

I think the major sticking point you are wrestling with here is the futuristic nature of this problem and scientific investigation. Instead of looking back at past precedents (which, really, are non existent--CO2 levels have never been this high) and establishing scientific laws and theories, we can only project this problem into the future. More CO2 means higher temperatures...eventually. Its a fact, but, unfortunately a fact that can't be experienced or proven until the higher temperatures are here...but then its too late.

The science making these projections is good, like I said 98% of the scientific community is buying in. The science, though, as you point out is not our typical deductive thought (although it is fairly deductive to say more CO2 ='s higher temperature), it has a major inductive portion to its logic: its says that since the beginning of time Earth has undergone fluctuations in temperature, and, for the most part, the variables have been the same (solar fluctuations, particulate counts, weather patterns, etc) but what is different this time is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so it (inductively) logically follows that this time the warming period is going to be exaggerated, and possibly catastrophically so (as you pointed out with your dinosaur example).

Essentially, my counter argument is this: past precedent is useful in its evaluation of influences that are alike today, such as solar intensity, but what we cannot fail to recognize is how we are in a different position today.

Dad:

I understand that 98% of the scientists agree with the accepted logic in your view of climate change. I also understand that universally accepted theories have time and again been revised with as yet undiscovered data or new models. Only time will tell. Reducing CO2 levels could not be a bad thing, but failure to do so may not be as catastrophic as your view predicts.