Climate Science, not Science Religion

Hot!

116 degrees in the shade at my farm yesterday, and there is no shade.

Climate science gets its credibility from facts, not faith.

Extraordinary temperatures are measurable, objective data. So is the rising level of CO2 in the air. Humans are burning fossils that have long been buried in the ground, so it is a good guess that all the extra CO2 is because of humans. Moreover, we are confident we understand CO2's greenhouse effect. We observe and measure glaciers shrinking, Antarctic ice melting, and bug species moving north, all of which suggest we are, in fact, experiencing global warming.

Human-caused climate change, and climate change itself, is a conclusion. 

Here is the landing page for Scientific American magazine yesterday:

That is a strong headline.  Driven by denotes caused. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/unprecedented-heat-wave-in-pacific-northwest-driven-by-climate-change/

The article does not do what the headline promises. The article is a series of anecdotes--a record in Salem, Oregon, another on an ocean beach, more in Portland and Seattle. The lead paragraph uses the words "climate change." 

A blistering heat wave obliterated high temperature records in Oregon and Washington over the weekend, ratcheting up risks for deaths and fires, and underscoring the dangers of climate change.

Deeper into the article, the writer summarizes the observations of the state climatologist:

The high temperatures came as the result of a high-pressure system over Oregon and Washington. Climate change played a role in that system, said O’Neill, Oregon’s state climatologist.

One of the mechanisms for the formation of a high-pressure system is tropical cyclone activity in the western Pacific Ocean, he said. Those are the West Coast equivalent of hurricanes. And like hurricanes, they are strengthened by warmer ocean temperatures.

High-pressure systems like the one driving the Pacific Northwest heat wave is “something like three times more likely to occur when we have a tropical cyclone out in the Pacific,” he said. “So climate change is impacting tropical cyclone activity through modulation of sea surface temperatures, and also things like wind shear.

Notice the sleight-of-hand here. "Climate change" is a presumed precondition, not a conclusion based on evidence of the high temperatures in the Northwest. The headline and article takes the leap as fact.

This is a mistake both in reporting and as a strategy in climate activism and persuasion.  Careful readers will notice that the evidence of climate change promised in the headline never came. Critics argue that climate activists jump to conclusions and argue from faith, not evidence. This is an iteration of that.

Let me make my own views clear. It is forbidden--sacrilege--for a Democrat to suggest there could be explanations for weather phenomena other than human-caused CO2 emissions, or that we don't understand the interplay of the earth's orbit, the sun's output, feedback loops of water vapor and temperatures, ocean currents and the hundred other things that affect climate generally and the temperature of any one place on any day. Democrats will tolerate religious atheists and agnostics, but it is perilous to urge climate activists and scientists to argue carefully from evidence, not presumption. 

Partisan tribalism is in play. Democrats believe in "climate change" as a matter of faith, mostly unexamined, relying on their team's assurance that "99% of scientists agree." Because it is partisan and tribal, most Republicans now take the position that climate change is questionable, not very important even if it exists, and certainly not worth paying a nickel a gallon more for gasoline to reduce carbon. It is a litmus test. 

I personally think it is well documented that humans have raised CO2 levels dramatically. We are likely screwing up the earth's weather, just as we are screwing up the ocean by putting plastic in it, and just as we are draining down the Oglala aquifer. It is common in nature for animals to ruin their own habitat. Animals overgraze. People overfish and destroy a fishery. People wear out soil. Humans trap the beavers to make fur hats, and then the creeks all go dry in the summer. Oops. Humans have stumbled onto the honeypot of cheap, concentrated energy in the form of fossil fuels and we are going to use it as fast as we can until something cheaper and easier comes along. It is what humans do. 

I think we are messing with Mother Nature. I consider rising CO2 levels a form of "litter." We shouldn't do it. Since the consequences of getting this wrong are disastrous, we had better err on the side of caution.

The political reality is that we are still a republic and a great many people will vote to keep on doing exactly what we are doing to the air, at risk to our climate, because humans will deny unwelcome actions until circumstances demand otherwise. In a battle of religious faiths, people can stick to their positions forever, even if traveling merrily, merrily, merrily down the stream takes the boat over a waterfall. To avoid that, people concerned about climate--Democrats and scientists both--need to preserve whatever credibility they have. 

It means not pretending an assertion is evidence.