The Climate Denier’s Intellectual Burden
If you’re at all keyed into the climate “debate” — whether you’re a climate activist or a hardcore denier — you are by now well-aware of what the scientific community has concluded regarding anthropogenic climate change. The landmark report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in October is lengthy and confusing, but here is the core, quoted exactly as it appears in the report summary. All italics and parentheses appear in the original text:
· “Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0⁰C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8⁰C to 1.2⁰C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5⁰C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues at the current rate (high confidence).”
· “Warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present will persist for centuries to millennia and will continue to cause further long-term changes in the climate system, such as sea-level rise, with associated impacts (high confidence), but these emissions alone are unlikely to cause global warming of 1.5⁰C (medium confidence).”
The report then goes on to describe in detail the anticipated risks and impacts of this sort of temperature change, as well as ways we might be able to curb the effects. And make no mistake, whether you think all of this has anything to do with humans or not, the effects are devastating. But, I digress; the purpose of this is not to scare you with what our world will eventually look like. If you aren’t already deeply concerned, you likely won’t be until it personally affects your life, at which point it will be far too late. The purpose of this, rather, is to ask you — if you’re a denier — to step up and put forth a position that is not contradictory to the way you probably live your life every day.
We’ve all heard the claim that 97% of scientists agree climate change is happening and that humans are largely responsible, but let’s be generous to the naysayers. There are a lot of reasons why that figure so commonly thrown around by politicians and the press might be an over-exaggeration. So, let’s say that somewhere between 80–95% of climate scientists agree, and let’s even keep in mind that their opinions are so nuanced that “agree” might be too strong of a word.
The purpose of this, rather, is to ask you — if you’re a denier — to step up and put forth a position that is not contradictory to the way you probably live your life every day.
Now, there are plenty of counterarguments to this still-hefty majority consensus floating around out there, but they generally seem to fall into two categories. There are those who simply reject the scientific consensus based on amateur observations — e.g. “But it’s really cold today and it’s April!” or “The Earth has been warming for the last 20,000 years, so it clearly has nothing to do with humans!” And then there are those who claim that climate science is essentially a left-wing political project, or, as the President of the United States has suggested, that it is a “hoax” “created by the Chinese” (is this real life?).
Most climate deniers probably stand behind both to some degree. And that’s fine. If you’re a denier, you’re entitled to your opinion. However, if you care at all about being taken seriously or about living in a way that isn’t entirely inconsistent with your stated beliefs, then you must be able to either (a) credibly argue that the other manifestations of science that you use in your daily life (medicine, technology) are not at all political, or (b) make a logically sound epistemological argument about why we aren’t able to know things at all. For practical purposes, I’ll focus on (a) for the rest of this article, the corollary of which is that you must also be able to show that the climate skeptic’s science is not political, either.
I want to first make it clear that I find nothing wrong with a healthy dose of scientific skepticism and dissent. What is deemed “knowledge” at one point in time can indeed change — as it turns out, the Earth is not the center of the solar system — and we should always continue to ask questions. But, there is a certain point at which all of us defer to expert knowledge for the sake of convenience or well-being. The problem with the climate denier’s position, at least those whom I’ve encountered, is that they defer to expert knowledge in every other aspect of their life. They seem to be okay with this because “the other stuff isn’t part of a political agenda” — but that could not be further from the truth.
The Department of Defense invented GPS and the earliest internet; NASA developed infant formula; the NSF funded the research that established Google, touchscreens, bar code scanners, you name it; the NIH funds foundational research into diseases and treatments that are used every day. The list is almost endless. All these organizations are funded with billions of government dollars, and then the same companies that end up profiting from taxpayer-funded research turn around and buy influence in our political system. It’s all about knowledge and power — what isn’t political about that? The most public and high-profile climate change naysayers are groups like the Texas Public Policy Institute , which has taken money from the tobacco and fossil fuel industries, as well as several Koch-related foundations. These are all groups that spend millions lobbying politicians and making campaign donations — yet the research they fund isn’t at all political? That’s a tough case to make.
If, as a denier, you can show that these other things are not part of a larger political agenda, or similarly that the science behind your dissenting claims is not politically-motivated, then your stance would be somewhat defensible. If you are unable to do that, you’re left with having to simultaneously reject and rely on politicized expert knowledge.
It’s all about knowledge and power — what exactly isn’t political about this?
I’ll end with a question, and I would love for someone who considers themselves a skeptic to answer it. You refuse to accept what 9 out of 10 climate experts say, supposedly because they use government funding and try to influence policy. Yet, I am willing to bet you would have no issue accepting a life-saving treatment suggested by 9 out of 10 medical experts, using a drug created from government funding, which profits a company that then funnels part of that into influencing policy. What’s the difference here — that in the latter case your life depends on it?
Yeah, well so does the planet’s.
This story is published in Noteworthy, where 10,000+ readers come every day to learn about the people & ideas shaping the products we love.
Follow our publication to see more product & design stories featured by the Journal team.
