In modern environmental discussions, nary 5 seconds goes by before someone brings up the issue of “Global Warming”. I’ll spare you the definition and the details, but I’ll look at a few common arguments on both sides:
“Global warming caused by humans”
- Carbon dioxide levels are higher than they’ve ever been, causing the earth to warm much in the same way Venus does.
- The CO2 output of humans is vast.
- The earth is getting measurably warmer.
- Ice caps are melting.
- No, seriously, the earth is heating up.
“Global Warming Not Caused By Humans (also Global Warming Doesn’t Exist)”
- The earth has a long history of heating and cooling on its own.
- The scientific consensus in the 1960s was that the earth was cooling.
- Solar activity varies.
- The data itself is invalid.
- We’re not the only producers of carbon dioxide.
Both of these sides might actually be right. From the uninformed standpoint, it might as well be a coin-toss. Unfortunately, it seems that many people settle the decision much in this very manner.
How did people come across their opinions? Where did they get the information for it?
All articles on global warming are required by law to have a picture of a polar bear. Image courtesy Flickr user mape_s published under CC license.
Media White Lies
Most people get all of their information on scientific research from the news media. The goal of the media is to explain issues for the lowest common denominator in society. If the average 14 year old can’t understand the news, it still needs to be simplified.
Like a parent explaining science to a toddler, the media can’t directly report the full text and results of environmental studies. So they do what the parent does: they tell little white lies and simplify the matter. For the most part, that’s fine. For most scientific results, people don’t need to know the methodology, the exact data, or the statistics that were used to come to a conclusion. The only thing that they need to be aware of is the result of the study. When I hear of a diplomatic summit, I don’t need to hear about the seating chart, the day-by-day discussions, or various faux pas. All I need to know about is what happened.
What complicates this matter is the fact that this is an issue where people are taking very strong, very opinionated sides. The worst part of it is that they aren’t even taking the sides based on the information: they are taking sides based on media reporting of the information. This is made worse when curious people find out extra information on their own (“You mean to tell me the earth heats and cools on its own?”).
I don’t know about you, but my only understanding of the global warming debate comes from media reports, An Inconvenient Truth, and a small sampling of scientific papers on the subject. I am not an environmental scientist, and environmental scientists aren’t interpreting the data for me. The only explanation I am getting is from the media, which is giving me a simplified version of global warming research.
So Where Do You Stand?
What position do I have on the “Global Warming Debate”? I don’t have a position! I clearly don’t have the right information to make an informed decision on the subject, and fortunately, that’s enough to stop me from forming an opinion.
Your opinions should be formed as a conclusion from sound premises. The average citizen is not informed enough to make a sound decision on global warming, so they should not. As wonderful as it’d be for you to be able to hold your own in a discussion against climate scientists, I’d bet that it isn’t very likely.
So what issue should we be debating?
Humans have a long and provable negative effect on our local environment. Countless animal species have gone extinct. We create gigantic landfills of non-decomposable waste. We’ve spilled oil over vast swaths of land. Our cars create smog. We cause acid rain. Factory emissions travel and land on citizens downwind. We caught a damned river on fire. Rivers are made of water and are therefore supposedly inflammable, but human ingenuity knows no bounds!
So What Should I Think?
It doesn’t particularly matter what your side is, so long as you’re basing it on what you know to be fact. If you think that it’s OK for other humans to suck on your exhaust pipe because you’re not morally responsible for the well-being of others, great. If you think that factories should minimize their exhaust output so that it doesn’t go into your lungs, awesome. If you think that humans should conserve as much as possible so that the species could potentially last indefinitely, scream it from the mountaintops.
The environment is more complicated than what happens on the global level. The average American is probably better informed on the effects of humans on local and regional levels, so that is the level at which they should try to form opinions.
If you feel the need to frame the debate in a simple name, call it “The pollution debate”. It even has less syllables, and gets straight to one of the roots of the issue.
For Fun
The next time you see somebody say they don’t believe global warming is human-caused, say “Which isn’t to say we should try to pollute or destroy our environment”. Sometimes you find that the person is strongly on the pro-pollution side, but every now and then you catch someone in a priceless moral quandary.
8 Comments
Awesome post! The media just exploits our natural tendency to be an arm chair quarterback.
I wonder what my European counterparts would have to say on the matter…?
You are ignoring the elephant in the room: Vested interests. A lot of the “information” passed along to the media comes from heavy carbon-emitting industries, who are terrified of regulations that might impact on their bottom line, and climate be damned. It’s a situation very similar to when the tobacco industry insisted that there was no link between smoking and cancer. In fact, it turns out some of the lobbyists that used to work for the tobacco industry are now working for the oil industry.
There is plenty of accurate, and accessible information on climate change. For example, all the arguments you cite against the existence of global warming, or against the human-caused variety, are addressed in The New Scientist’s Climate Change: A Guide For The Perplexed, where they address the “26 most common climate myths and misconceptions”.
@Alfonz:
First, I think it’s interesting that the only fact you cited was the least controversial of anything you said. I’m not stating anything one way or another to its validity, but you can’t expect people to automatically know where that information comes from
Second, I’m well aware there’s plenty of easily-Googled information on global climate science. I’ve looked at a lot of it. I think I strongly hinted at the fact that I’m pro-saving-and-conserving-the-environment, but no, it was never explicitly stated.
It seems that you 100% missed the point of my post. To bring it in perspective, I know a guy who didn’t go to college, works as a landscaper, doesn’t ever go online, and only really knows whatever news other people tell him. Yet he still has a strong opinion that global warming isn’t caused by humans. That is his *only* opinion, one way or the other, on the whole environmental debate.
The average Joe 6-pack doesn’t have enough information to make an informed decision. I’m always super-worried about fooling myself, and I’m not sure I have enough information to make an informed decision, even though I’ve actively sought a lot of it. So why not form our opinions on things we’re certain of?
The whole environment debate is being framed around a single issue that has been made divisive. Let’s talk about other versions of it that are much more concrete, and find where people really stand.
A really great post!
I enjoyed watching “Inconvenient Truth”, but I haven’t had the time to research any scholarly articles that support Al Gore’s argument…or any against it.
Jake you are dead on in regards to the media being the primary source of information regarding this topic and all other topics. Of course I’m assuming that by “media” you are referring to corporate media outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews, and the nightly news on major networks. In addition to these major sources of news, you have to also consider the fact that many people get there information from random websites they find from internet search engines – blogs such as this – but lacking in citations and references. (Thanks for the links to other sources besides your own thoughts.)
I personally find scholarly articles to be the most reliable source for information, and even they need to be approached with the caution of a trained eye – most people assume anyone with a doctorate knows what they’re talking about, when in actuality they may be forming their hypothesis around a biased opinion.
Where then is the common man (and woman) to find the truth?
For legitimate research check out Google Scholar – http://scholar.google.com/
- but remember that all research has its limitations, and therefor all findings have their limitations in regards to the generalization of truth.
Jake:
I hear you on this completely. We are being misdirected to discuss a broader issue (human pollution) by way of the new buzz term of the fledgling century: Global Warming. Indeed it is to the advantage of corporations and governments to discuss “Global Warming” as you pointed out because the evidence can go either way, depending on which study and background knowledge you have at your disposal. However, what cannot be argued (which is the very reason why Global Warming is at the forefront and not this…) is human-created pollution has vast negative global effects on ecosystems.
Excellent post, good insight in illuminating fresh perspective on a murky debate.
Ha! “All articles on global warming are required by law to have a picture of a polar bear.” Thats some funny *@#&!
Excellent point Jake. If all the self declared enviro-scientists in the world would spend half as much effort on turning off the light when they are done in the room or keep the room 1 degree warmer/cooler it would do infinitly more good for the environment than all the hot air they can spit at Corporate America who despite being a cop-out excuse for every flaw in the world, is the only entity with the clout and resources to do anything about it.
What the lion’s share of these sanctimonious idiots won’t admit to themselves, least of all anyone else, is that they are too lazy or don’t care enough to inconvenience themselves to physically do ANYTHING that might reduce their localized environmental impact.
4 Trackbacks
[...] and solar power, or even nuclear. Unfortunately, smog and pollution are still major contributors to global warming; and one day of showing that appreciation is just not enough. Sure, companies can give out their [...]
[...] not have known about her two weeks ago, but Sarah Palin is currently the hottest thing since the Global Warming Debate. If you doubt the potential steamroller effect that Palin is already having on this election, then [...]
[...] consider the fact that nuclear power is a zero-carbon energy supply. Regardless of your stance on global warming, there can be no doubt that zero-carbon is the preferable means of generation. Couple this with [...]
[...] car. Purchasing a hybrid car is more like a personal statement over the growing concerns regarding global warming. However, if you are looking for a vehicle with good fuel economy that is the best bang for your [...]