There’s an interesting link-filled post on the recent hurricanes and climate change by Michael Stickings over at The Moderate Voice. It’s an important subject and worthy of our consideration but it’s one that’s far outside my areas of expertise and interest and, consequently, it’s not a subject that I post on much.
I see the issue as a series of questions:
- Does sea surface temperature influence the force and/or frequency of hurricanes?
My answer: Yes.
- Has human activity contributed to a rise in sea surface temperature?
My answer: probably Yes.
- Will there be climate change with or without human intervention?
My answer: Yes.
- Should the U. S. engage in measures to reduce its contribution to the problem of climate change?
My answer: Yes.
- Has anything that the U. S. has done or not done in the last four years caused there to be more hurricanes or more severe hurricanes this year?
My answer: probably No. It’s my understanding the the effects of all currently proposed measures would only occur after decades and only have a very modest effect.
- If the Clinton Administration had been able to convince the Senate to approve the Kyoto Protocols and if the U. S. had implemented them fully would that have caused there to be fewer hurricanes or less severe hurricanes this year?
My answer: probably No. See above. The measure was only intended to have effect over decades and the results were projected to be very modest. Further, I’m skeptical that any environmental measure that explicitly excludes major polluters like China, India, and Brazil is likely to have any real impact on climate change whatsoever.
I’d actually go farther. My intuition is that environmental change and degradation in the tropics is probably more influential in world climate change than environmental change and degradation in the temperate zones.
- Do both Democratic and Republican politicans have their heads in the sand on this issue?
My answer: Yes.
- Are proponents of the Kyoto Protocol more interested in discomfiting the United States than they are in climate change?
My answer: probably Yes.
The posting in The Moderate Voice was a good example of a person wrestling above their weight limit. You take a more timid approach, but the obvious deference you give to the TMV article reduces your credibility. Global warming, and the political crusade it has become, is not what you think it is. Your view is no doubt largely shaped by the “me-too” media. If you want to post about something so politically loaded, do your homework first. Just a suggestion. I could suggest you take several years of mathematics, but most people lack the aptitude so they have to take other people’s word for things. Too bad.
Thank you for mentioning my post at TMV. I must respond to Ron. His point, I take it, is that one should take at least a few years of advanced mathematics (if not also geophysics, oceanography, and other such scientific specialties) before even commenting on such a “politically loaded” issue as climate change. But this would mean that all such commentary on climate change would take place among specialists and those who have at least that minimum of learning. Needless to say, this would take this very important issue out of both the mainstream media and the political arena. (It’s like saying that you shouldn’t discuss Iraq unless you have a degree in Middle Eastern studies and/or international relations.)
I agree that one shouldn’t presume to have knowledge of things beyond one’s “weight limit,” but looking over my post again I hardly think that I presumed to have knowledge of the intricacies of climate change. I framed the political context, then looked at how the issue is being handled in the mainstream media (USA Today, Reuters), then quoted from a columnist in the mainstream media (The Boston Globe) who has written about climate change and its possible connection to these hurricanes.
Then, of course, I deferred to experts (RealClimate) — who, in my view (admittedly a non-professional one), seem to have presented a balanced assessment of the problem.
If I took a side, it was only to criticize the denials of the anti-environmental right (The Washington Times), which I think are a huge problem, especially with Bush in the White House. It may be a simple point that we should be addressing climate change in the mainstream media and in the political arean, but keep in mind that the Bush Administration (and others on the right) have denied that climate change is even a reality.
By the way, I say all this as someone who respects academic expertise (perhaps because I’d like to think I have some myself, in political theory and American and European politics and history). I would not presume to claim that I am some sort of expert (even an amateur one) on such a complicated issue as climate change, but this lack of expertise should not prevent me from addressing the issue from a detached perspective that ultimately defers to experts.
**********
Glittering Eye: You have a really good site here. Please get in touch if you’d care to exhange links on our blogrolls. I’m a co-blogger at TMV, but I also write The Reaction:
http://www.the-reaction.blogspot.com/
This brings up a fascinanting question. Are some questions too technical for democracy to deal with propely? Most voters know shite from shinola about science. Somehow they’re supposed to be able to vote on scientific issues, at least some candidates make things like climate change big parts of their campaignsl If people don’t comprehend things that theyre basing votes on, what good is democracy?
Here’s what I think about that, Jay. As someone who’s been “an expert” for nearly all of my life I believe that experts (and advocates) have an obligation to communicate the results of their expertise clearly to non-experts. If they can’t or won’t do that what’s to guarantee their probity?
This is a problem as old as civilization. Probably older. It’s old enough that one expression of it is in Latin: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who guards the guards)
I think you also have to ask the question “Will global warming necessarily be a bad thing? …because I think the answer might actually be NO for certain people and regions of the planet….but then who knows – we’ll all be dead by then anyway.
The mathematics of climate change is fascinating. It is often misused, by some of the very people who run realclimate.org. You know what? It is a lot like the relationship between Arthur Anderson and Enron. Like the fox guarding the henhouse. A wonderful scam if you can get it. Like the referee judging his own scientific paper for publication. realclimate.org
What we really need is an independent audit. This boggles the mind. It cannot be true, right? But it is. Go figure. Or just be a true believer, since everyone is doing it but the stupid wingers. You think?