|Charles Krauthammer, hack writer|
For reasons that sometimes escape me, our local paper of choice, The Hindu, carries columnists from the NYT & WaPo. Do Indians really get Maureen Dowd? In any event, today I read Krauthammer because I suspected he was full of baloney when I read his title: "The myth of settled science". Here's his opening:
I repeat: I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I've long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white coat propagandists.Let's unpack this. Healthy skepticism, open-mindedness, continuing inquiry: all are hallmarks of good science. However, this scientific agnosticism, like patriotism, if often the last refuge of scoundrals. Flat-earthers and creationists love to spout it, along with climate change deniers. There is a huge body of science upon which we can have no rational disagreement. Science lives in a double-world: both agreed and open to revision. We have to use sound judgment to distinguish the two.
In matters concerning global climate change and human carbon-loading of the environment, we have to maintain both attitudes. However, we do have to choose on the basis of the best evidence. We have to make decisions on what we believe to be the truth based on empirical evidence. From this we have to discern the hypothesis most likely to approximate the truth (facts) that will arise in the future. When it's the future we're considering--and it certainly is in this case--we have to constantly revise our theories and understanding. Double that thought when we're talking about the uber-complex world of the biosphere, perhaps the ultimate complex system that evolves over eons and that fluctuates moment-to-moment.
Krauthammer unleashes a shotgun spray of arguments in an attempt to hit Obama on this issue. We can't know for sure, so we can't say that "The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact."
Yes, we can.
It's true to say that we're not sure of how fast change will continue to come, how it will affect weather patterns, and so on. We don't know these things with a high degree of certainty. So does this prevent us from acting? No, we act, regardless. We only can choose whether to act in ignorance or by informed and educated science. We are now acting, only foolishly. What Obama and a decisive majority of the science community are recommending is that we act rationally based on the strong consensus of the scientific community. (I know about Freeman Dyson, but isn't there one in every crowd? Einstein didn't accept quantum theory, either. Even geniuses make mistakes.) Climate change is undoubtedly occurring, even though we don't know with certainty its parameters or trajectory.
We need to act according common law standards for torts (harm to others with whom we don't have a contractual relationship). In other words, we need to gaudge the liklihood of harm, the magnitude of the possible harm, the cost of avoiding the harm, and act accordingly. Climate change-deniers (yes, an apt name for them) ignore the context that we should apply to this type of issue and attempt to make it an all-or-nothing proposition. Nice work if you can get it, but don't expect it in serious issues about the future.
We should recall that we on planet earth are running an N=1 experiment. In doing so, we need to remember that we can't run it again, at least not in this iteration of the universe. Therefore, we ought to be pretty damn careful. I don't like the thought of using less energy--energy is eternal delight. But I don't want to mess up the planet permanently. Especially if we do so by paying attention to hacks like Charles Kruthammer.