For several months, I have read a variety of peices on the net and in print on global warming, and it is interesting to decode right-wing denials and the phony debate. In doing so, one finds that, at the heart of the matter is not any question of scientific data, although they pretend this is so; rather, what lies at the heart of denials of global warming is a fear of what doing something about global warming might mean for our present standard of living. Fear of economic dislocation - deindustrialization, a leveling down and scaling back of our economy - are the major factors at the heart of the phony debate. To put it simply - the global warming deniers do not wish for us to give up our grossly consumptive standard of living to save the planet, because we have, by gosh and by golly, earned the right to steal resources from planet earth and use them for our mutual destruction.
First, of course, come the denials. It is so easy to create a question for science and scientific theories, and the deniers have loads of them. Indeed, all one has to do is point out that someone, somewhere, is raising these questions, and blamo, you have a lack of scientific consensus. At the heart of this is the very real position that no science is exact, all scientific evidence is statistical in nature, and all theories are questionable. I have made the same points myself innumerable times. The problem, however, is that while all theories are questionable at some basic, ontological level, as a matter of practice, it would be difficult to imagine a less problematic theory than human-induced global warming. It satisfies all the criteria for successful theory no matter what philosophy of science one adheres to; it accounts for disparate data, it makes predicitons based upon certain assumptions, and these predictions are highly accurate, and lead to further predicitons that are also remarkably accurate.
So, presented with the success of the theory, the overwhelming evidence, etc., except for die-hards like Jim Inhofe, the matter shifts slightly something like this: "OK, fine, the earth is getting warmer. Can we with absolute certianty say the human activity is the source of the problem?" It is a short drive down a very crooked path to this rather prosaic, indeed scientific, question, to Dana "Dinosaur Farts" Rohrbacher. In a recent House committee hearing, Rohrbacher noted the fact of earlier global climate change, and offered dinosaur flatulence as a possible source. All one can say about such idiocy is "HAHAHAHAHAHA". Yet, the question is a sound one, and deserves the response that, yes, we can say, with quite great deal of certainty (more than is given with most scientific theories and models) that human activity is the leading contributing factor to global climate change. Again, evidence is brought out, part one of the whole "debate" is repeated, until we are all satisfied that both part I and part II of the whole "debate" has come to a complete stop and all trays are in their upright and locked positions.
We now move to the true heart of the matter. "What can we do about it?" Those who pose the question, often without waiting for a response from serious interlocutors, answer it themselves this way: "It would mean the end of our standard of living. No industry. No automobiles. We all go back to living in the Middle Ages. Our economy would collapse. Our civilization would end." Of course, no one makes this point except those who claim they don't believe the theory, so one could call this an exercise in bad faith. Actually, I claim they do believe in global climate change - how could they not? - and are terrified of the implications for what they hold to be our practically divine right to live more richly than any other nation on earth. Now, few serious policy makers are suggesting that we deindustrialize. Indeed, there are a variety of ways of making our lives carbon-neutral that actually encourage innovation and invention on the part of industry. This, alas, is also a threat to our current economic and social status quo, which these folks are defending without thought.
It is this, more than anything else that lies at the heart of global warming deniers. They understand the threat is very real, but see little more than any attempt to deal with the situation as a threat to the way things are. These folks liike the way things are. Of course, if Bangladesh is flooded out, or Florida disappears as a peninsula, or New York City becomes unlivable below 75th St., we might need to rethink the entire thing - yet, these are situations for which we need to be preparing now - socially, politically, and economically. Just one prediction - the desertification of much of the arable land og the American Plains - is quickly becoming a reality. Think about what that would mean in terms of food production, population redistribution, our economy. These are things for which we need to have contingencies, not suddenly rush in willy-nilly screaming "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
These are the reasons, I feel, that global warming deniers are disingenuous; they claim not to accept either the theory, or the preponderance of the evidence supporting the theory, or the cause. I believe they accept it whole-heartedly; what they fear are the implications for their privileged position in society and the the privileged position of America in the world. Such a threat cannot be borne, so they attack the theory, rather than admit what any sane person would admit - the prospects of the implications of global climate change scare them immensely.
Virtual Tin Cup
