Joe Romm, in his book Hell and High Water, had this to say about why we should be cautious about meteorologists talking about Global Warming/Catastrophic Climate Change.
Asking a meteorologist to explain the cause of recent extreme weather is like asking your family doctor what the chances are for an avian flu pandemic in the next few years or asking a Midwest sheriff about the prospects of nuclear terrorism. The answer might be interesting, but it wouldn’t be one I’d stake my family’s life on. (p. 225)
Yet, meteorologists are the easiest for journalists to get ahold of and they sound so authoritative. But, just like Romm, I don’t want to stake my (or your) family’s life on their views.
Sadly, WUSA’s Tupper Schott provided a textbook example to prove Romm right.
Let’s go through Tupper’s April 2008 Climate Tolerance post idiocy by idiocy.
As the Maryland legislature and other states, cities and towns grapple with reducing CO2 levels I cannot help but feel a bit frustrated. (The State Assembly of Maryland could not agree on a CO2 reduction plan this session.)
Tupper, guess you’re about to be seriously crying as, even in the face of the serious economic challenges, Maryland is moving forward on an Energy Smart path with Governor O’Malley forcefully leading the way.
Let’s for the sake of argument assume that the proposed bill in Annapolis would reduce the global temperature by .5 degrees Fahrenheit in fifty years. (This is a ludicrous assumption since Maryland is just one state and it would have to be a global initiative but let’s go with it for now.)
This is a classic argument from skeptics (actually, from anyone who wishes to denigrate civic engagement). “You’re too small … we’re too small to have an impact …”
Why should we, for example, celebrate those who volunteered for service during WWII. Didn’t they realize that they, themselves, all alone couldn’t defeat Hitler?
Why didn’t the Minutemen stay at home, waiting for a critical mass that could actually defeat the Redcoats, rather than risk (and, in many cases, lose) their lives against a superior military force?
No, Maryland, don’t take action because Maryland can’t solve the world’s ills alone.
In 2050 when we look back on the amount of money we spent to reduce the temperature a very small amount and in the process put almost impossible demands on our businesses will we be able to defend that decision to our grandchildren?
What a false question. Is the ‘only’ benefit to reduce temperature? Ending our coal addiction will reduce asthma, reduce mercury in the environment (and in tuna), cut acidification of the oceans, … Greening our buildings makes them more comfortable and us (the US) healthier. Electrifying transportation reduces the dollars flowing overseas to buy oil to feed our liquid fossil addiction. Etc …
Should we instead put that money into schools, infrastructure and R & D ? I am not trying to diminish global warming but I am, like Bjorn Lomborg, attempting look at it from a different perspective.
Sure, a different, deceptive, disingenuous, truthiness perspective …
Some of the affects of global warming have been greatly exaggerated (when the ice cubes in your drink melt does you glass overflow ? )
Okay, “Tupper” (come off it, get a real name, can’t you?), how hard is this to understand. The Arctic ice melting will not (WILL NOT) drive the seas to rise as this is floating ice. A glass with “floating ice” that melts will not overflow. The Antarctic ice, Greenland ice, the glaciers are not floating, but resting on land. When they melt, the water will flow into the ocean and will increase sea levels. (The appropriate analogy, perhaps, is a pitcher full of ice tilted so that the water drips (and then flows) into a glass as it melts … this will make the glass overflow (if there is enough ice)).
and our money may be better spent exploring other avenues in addition to CO2 reduction. CO2 is just one variable in a most complex global climate.
Sure, some “may be better spent”, but the question is what are the tradeoffs and options. We are spending tremendous resources on many things that have far less value than transitioning to a low-carbon, sustainable economy.
And, Tupper, thank you for that eloquent statement on CO2. Did anyone serious about climate change ever suggest that CO2 is the only variable?
I have stated for years that some of the effects of global warming might even be beneficial. We might see crops grown farther north and in areas of the world that previously could cultivate nothing.
Okay, again, does anyone serious ever state that there won’t be some forms of limited ‘benefits’? It is, after all, sort of nice to be able to bike in shorts in the middle of January. That’s a “benefit”, but that is far from outweighing disrupted agricultural patterns (and productivity), animal extinctions, droughts, floods, stronger storms, etc …
And, Tupper, think through your statement. Some areas might be able to grow crops that couldn’t and others (hint Australia …) could become nearly literally Hell on Earth.
Global warming is such a politically charged issue that we are losing our perspective on the issue and more importantly losing an open forum from which to discuss the issue.
Actually, Tupper, are you open minded enough to consider that the anti-science rhetoric that has emanated from, let’s be honest, the Republican Party is how this became ideological in the United States? Where is the most fundamental questioning of science, the scientific method, and education?
“Global Warming” is politically charged not because of the science but because of the implications: too many (you Tupper) don’t want to admit to reality because it might mean that you can’t heat your deck when barbecuing in December (okay, thanks to Global Warming, won’t have to heat as much) and that the government might actually have a role for helping society transform to something better.
If we lose the right or comfort level to openly discuss and debate this issue we will not be able to tackle it efficiently and economically.
Sort of like the Bush Administration stifling scientists?
Romm on meteorologists, Hell and High Water (highly recommended read; perhaps the best book on the political consequences of global warming).
Another reason the media gets the climate extreme-weather link wrong: Most meteorologists, including virtually every TV meteorologist, are not experts on global warming. As on climate scientist explained to me:
“Meteorologits are not required to take a course in climate change … university programs don’t requre the course (even if they offer it). So we have been educating generations of meteorologists who know nothing about climate change.”
Asking a meteorologist to explain the cause of recent extreme weather is like asking your family doctor what the chances are for an avian flu pandemic in the next few years or asking a Midwest sheriff about the prospects of nuclear terrorism. The answer might be interesting, but it wouldn’t be one I’d stake my family’s life on. (p. 225)