Letter: Global warming is here, people need to pay attention (Printed Nov. 23, 2007)
Editor:
At one time, there was doubt and uncertainty about global warming. But times have changed, and even ExxonMobil’s Web site says it’s “prudent” to address the risks of climate change. However, judging from two recent letters in the Post, some fanatical deniers of global warming didn’t get the memo.
The authors of these letters, Arthur Thoms and Ralph Shirak, claim that global warming is nothing more than media hype and scare tactics. They say policymakers and journalists don’t pay enough attention to the many respected scientists who supposedly are expressing skepticism. Shirak claims that these same scientists are having their careers ruined because of their unpopular views. Thoms and Shirak see a conspiracy to push a Chicken Little story on the public.
It’s important for readers to understand that these arguments are quaint relics of a debate that’s essentially over, and we need to think about the challenges ahead.
Twenty or thirty years ago, there was legitimate skepticism about climate change. But the more scientists learn about our climate, the more certain they are that temperatures are rising and that humans are to blame.
This year, Arctic sea ice shrank drastically, opening the Northwest Passage for the first time. By 2030, the ice might disappear in the summer, according to scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center. If this happens, it will be the first time in over a million years that the Arctic Ocean has been free of ice.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes such former skeptics as ExxonMobil scientists and members of the Bush administration, reports periodically on the state of the science. In 2001, the IPCC said there was a 66% probability that humans are causing global warming. This year, they raised that number to 90%.
For a long time, the popular press gave equal coverage to those scientists who were concerned about global warming and those who expressed skepticism. But as the scientific community reached a consensus, it became harder to find a skeptic who wasn’t employed by an oil company. There’s a big difference between skepticism and denial, and most of those who claim to be skeptics are really just lobbyists or conspiracy theorists.
Among policymakers, I don’t think we need to worry about the “skeptics” not having their voices heard. They can always find members of Congress who want to burn more fossil fuels.
If you think journalists are playing Chicken Little, then try comparing this issue to issues that really were overhyped. Two examples that come to mind are the Y2K bug and the run on flu vaccine that occurred during a normal flu season a few years ago. In both cases, the media and the public latched onto a few facts and blew them way out of proportion. Science had little to do with either one.
In contrast, recognition of climate change developed gradually among scientists, like any solid scientific concept. Scientists reached a consensus long before the media or politicians caught on. There may be hype now, but the hype is overdue.
When people say we shouldn’t worry about climate change, their arguments show the signs of classic denialism. Thoms claims to have piles of evidence, but he points to nothing more than old newspaper articles and bizarre logic. Using his method, you could prove that passenger pigeons have nothing to worry about. If you look for actual scientific evidence, at best you’ll find old claims that don’t account for recent data. Meanwhile, Thoms demands precise and infallible projections of future changes before doing anything to slow the warming trend. That’s like saying he won’t wear a seatbelt unless someone tells him what day he’ll have an accident.
Shirak claims that many scientists are getting fired for not going along with the hype, but I can’t find any examples. When I search for victims, I just find vague claims about reduced funding.
Denialists claim that the news media are biased against them, when in fact the media gave them far too much credit for far too long. They accuse people of using scare tactics, yet they can’t disprove the horror stories. The shrinking polar ice cap is scary, but it’s also a fact.
If you ask the denialists what they think the climate is doing, they’ll give you wildly varying answers. Some say the climate is cooling, while others say it’s getting hotter but there’s nothing we can do about it. If you ask why anyone would want to push the story of global warming if it weren’t true, they’ll give you a variety of conflicting conspiracy theories about world government and grant funding.
Don’t be distracted by the fanatics, because there’s important work to do. The warming trend and the link with human activities are well established, and now it’s time for everyone -- scientists, legislators, industry and the public -- to figure out what we’re going to do about it. Let’s stop inventing conspiracy theories and move on to more important things.
Jason Wise
Kennebunk
At one time, there was doubt and uncertainty about global warming. But times have changed, and even ExxonMobil’s Web site says it’s “prudent” to address the risks of climate change. However, judging from two recent letters in the Post, some fanatical deniers of global warming didn’t get the memo.
The authors of these letters, Arthur Thoms and Ralph Shirak, claim that global warming is nothing more than media hype and scare tactics. They say policymakers and journalists don’t pay enough attention to the many respected scientists who supposedly are expressing skepticism. Shirak claims that these same scientists are having their careers ruined because of their unpopular views. Thoms and Shirak see a conspiracy to push a Chicken Little story on the public.
It’s important for readers to understand that these arguments are quaint relics of a debate that’s essentially over, and we need to think about the challenges ahead.
Twenty or thirty years ago, there was legitimate skepticism about climate change. But the more scientists learn about our climate, the more certain they are that temperatures are rising and that humans are to blame.
This year, Arctic sea ice shrank drastically, opening the Northwest Passage for the first time. By 2030, the ice might disappear in the summer, according to scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center. If this happens, it will be the first time in over a million years that the Arctic Ocean has been free of ice.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes such former skeptics as ExxonMobil scientists and members of the Bush administration, reports periodically on the state of the science. In 2001, the IPCC said there was a 66% probability that humans are causing global warming. This year, they raised that number to 90%.
For a long time, the popular press gave equal coverage to those scientists who were concerned about global warming and those who expressed skepticism. But as the scientific community reached a consensus, it became harder to find a skeptic who wasn’t employed by an oil company. There’s a big difference between skepticism and denial, and most of those who claim to be skeptics are really just lobbyists or conspiracy theorists.
Among policymakers, I don’t think we need to worry about the “skeptics” not having their voices heard. They can always find members of Congress who want to burn more fossil fuels.
If you think journalists are playing Chicken Little, then try comparing this issue to issues that really were overhyped. Two examples that come to mind are the Y2K bug and the run on flu vaccine that occurred during a normal flu season a few years ago. In both cases, the media and the public latched onto a few facts and blew them way out of proportion. Science had little to do with either one.
In contrast, recognition of climate change developed gradually among scientists, like any solid scientific concept. Scientists reached a consensus long before the media or politicians caught on. There may be hype now, but the hype is overdue.
When people say we shouldn’t worry about climate change, their arguments show the signs of classic denialism. Thoms claims to have piles of evidence, but he points to nothing more than old newspaper articles and bizarre logic. Using his method, you could prove that passenger pigeons have nothing to worry about. If you look for actual scientific evidence, at best you’ll find old claims that don’t account for recent data. Meanwhile, Thoms demands precise and infallible projections of future changes before doing anything to slow the warming trend. That’s like saying he won’t wear a seatbelt unless someone tells him what day he’ll have an accident.
Shirak claims that many scientists are getting fired for not going along with the hype, but I can’t find any examples. When I search for victims, I just find vague claims about reduced funding.
Denialists claim that the news media are biased against them, when in fact the media gave them far too much credit for far too long. They accuse people of using scare tactics, yet they can’t disprove the horror stories. The shrinking polar ice cap is scary, but it’s also a fact.
If you ask the denialists what they think the climate is doing, they’ll give you wildly varying answers. Some say the climate is cooling, while others say it’s getting hotter but there’s nothing we can do about it. If you ask why anyone would want to push the story of global warming if it weren’t true, they’ll give you a variety of conflicting conspiracy theories about world government and grant funding.
Don’t be distracted by the fanatics, because there’s important work to do. The warming trend and the link with human activities are well established, and now it’s time for everyone -- scientists, legislators, industry and the public -- to figure out what we’re going to do about it. Let’s stop inventing conspiracy theories and move on to more important things.
Jason Wise
Kennebunk
Comments