|
jshell wrote: I'm rambling now.
Well, if you can have a ramble, then so can I......
jshell wrote: Yup, still suspicious. You should be too.
It all depends on what you believe, I suppose. Let me explain a bit where I'm coming from...
I don't think we'll get very far by citing research at one another. As you've pointed out, neither of us are climate scientists. If provided with one paper that says CO2 is a greenhouse gas and another that says it isn't; we're probably not qualified to work out which is valid.
Normally this wouldn't be an issue. Most scientific debates never even leave the laboratory, because they have no implications for how the public should behave. But the debate about Climate Change is different. *If* human activity is resulting in a significant rise in average global temperatures, then I'm sure we can agree that this merits consideration at the very least.
Trouble is; the science is relatively inaccessible which makes consideration of the problem difficult. Don't get me wrong; I've studied science and have an engineering background, so personally I'm quite sure that if I dedicated a couple of years to studying climatology and reading widely across the current literature in the subject that I'd be able to arrive at an informed position. I don't have that time. I'm researching a subject I find far more interesting and, as it happens, more important*. So I'll have to leave climatology to the climatologists.
What I will say, however, is that -- just from what I can tell -- of the papers published on the subject, the vast majority appear to support the notion that CO2 produced by human activity is responsible, in part, for an increase in average global temperatures. I'm not suggesting that the majority opinion is automatically correct (given my fringe views on a large number of subjects, that would be a particularly self-defeating position), just that when -- as in this case -- we are forced to rely upon the opinion of "experts", it makes sense to accept the position of the majority until we discover a compelling reason to do otherwise. And frankly, nothing I've read so far has provided a compelling reason.
You have alluded to vested interests on more than one occasion, but this seems like a spectacular red-herring to me. Those in power would like nothing more than definitive proof that human industrial activity is not altering the global climate in potentially destructive ways. And when I say "those in power", I'm speaking both of the capitalist owners of industry and the political elite. The former stand to lose a huge amount if AGW is accepted as reality by the public, the latter rely upon the former for much of their support and also stand to lose a great deal of popular support if circumstances force them to impose a reduction in public consumption patterns (the end result of reducing industrial activity).
Incidentally, despite the results of opinion polls suggesting that the public has already accepted AGW as a reality, our complete failure to alter our behaviour shows that to be a lie. People may have accepted it intellectually, and may claim to be concerned about it, but collectively we aren't doing anything significant to deal with it. This is why I'm so amazed at people (just read the comments on a random George Monbiot article over at The Guardian if you've not encountered them) who bandy terms like "eco-fascist" or "Climate Change Nazi" about. Fascism (and by extension Nazism) are far more to do with the imposition of power than they are about any particular ideology. And those seeking to reduce CO2 emissions have sod-all power.
The vested interests are all on the other side. The fossil fuels industry and everything that depends upon it are more powerful than any government, let alone some toothless intergovernmental panel of scientists making recommendations.
Ultimately though, when we lack the evidence of our senses and are forced to rely upon the testimony of strangers (as is the case with Climate Change) then the conclusions we arrive at usually have as much to do with our preconceived ideas and existing beliefs as they do with the evidence we are presented. I've spent a huge chunk of my adult life researching issues surrounding sustainability; first from the perspective of an engineer studying peak oil and latterly from the perspective of a psychoanalyst studying ecological systems. Everything I've read points to one conclusion: that we, as a species, are wreaking havoc on the ecology of which we are part. A combination of fossil fuels and advanced technology has produced a collective psychosis at the heart of modern culture; one which is primed for self-destruction. And this is irrespective of whether AGW is a reality or not.
So when a group of scientists tell me that human CO2 emissions are damaging the ecosystem in ways beyond the obvious, then I am inclined to believe them. Partly because they seem authoritative (I've personally spoken to a climatologist at my university and I'm convinced he honestly believes the AGW position), but mostly because it fits in with my existing knowledge of what we are doing to this planet (and be in no doubt, we are systematically destroying our ecology, AGW or no AGW). In the same way, while I don't know you as a person, your natural inclination to disbelieve AGW theory says as much about your pre-existing mindset than it does about the theory itself.
This, obviously, makes it far more difficult to convince a person of the validity of the theory (or vice versa). It's not just a case of trying to get someone to accept a few facts, but can actually involve them re-evaluating some deeply held assumptions about the world; assumptions which may well be unconscious. This is why dealing with sustainability issues should be regarded as much as psychotherapeutic processes as engineering problems.
-----------------------
* I tend to get rather irate with environmentalists who claim that "Climate Change is the most important issue we face" because the statement implies a failure to grasp the salient fact that Climate Change is a subset of a far greater issue -- the inherent unsustainability of our civilisation. If tomorrow it was proven beyond a doubt that AGW was not happening, it would be one less thing to worry about, certainly, but it wouldn't suddenly make our society sustainable. Indeed, it might actually have the effect of loosening the very few, albeit mostly cosmetic, restraints on industry that have come about as a result of AGW concerns.
|
