Global warming is confusing, politicized and further complicated by controversy, which makes it almost impossible to sift through all the information thrown at us by the media, activist groups and politicians. So it makes sense that people are skeptical of global warming.
And the lack of substantive debate about the controversial issues involved with global warming doesn’t help.
In fact, this lack of analytical discussion leaves the public with no real choice but to be confused, or to take sides based on political divides. They consequentially question aspects of global warming that need not be questioned ““ even wondering whether the climate is warming at all.
A good example of this lack of proper debate is the response to Bjorn Lomborg’s book “The Skeptical Environmentalist.”
This book doesn’t deny global warming but rather questions the specifics of what is presented to the public, detailing how the scientific methods used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to determine the effects of fossil fuels on our atmosphere can be used to create hyperboles by activist groups and the media.
Media sources including the Washington Post and The Economist wrote positive reviews of the book. But this was in contrast to the response from parts of the scientific community. The book created quite a stir, with some scientists claiming that since Lomborg is a statistician and not an environmental scientist, he doesn’t have the authority to write such a book.
This is strange considering that the book didn’t attack the science but rather highlighted points of controversy in the research that could be misread. The IPCC was well aware of a number of these, but the public was not. Yet a proper discussion about these controversies didn’t happen.
And people are left just as confused ““ torn between whether to believe scientists or a well-formulated idea heralded by respected media publications.
In order to curb skepticism, people need to feel as if they’re being presented with honest information.
This shouldn’t be difficult considering that many of the questions I’ve come across when talking to people about global warming have relatively straightforward answers:
Is the world really getting warmer, and is this really due to human influences?
Yes and yes. The world is getting warmer, and it is almost definitely human-influenced. The IPCC reports have become successively more sure of this as more analysis is done, with the first volume of the “Climate Change 2007″ report explicitly stating that it is “very likely” that greenhouse gases affect the climate and that it is “unequivocal” that humans have had a direct impact on the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
So the world is going to get warmer ““ so what?
Well, the IPCC predicts that sea levels will very likely rise, and that storms are likely to be more intense.
Some, including the U.S. government, like to point out the potential benefits of the world warming up, namely that it will open up more land for farming.
But predicting the future is a hazy business. According to the National Science Academies, while both the positive and negative side effects of global warming are recognized, the intensity of these effects are debated. But even so, it’s pretty certain that the negative will outweigh the positive.
So Hurricane Katrina was or wasn’t caused by global warming?
Neither. Specific weather events do not constitute climate change. The study of climate looks at trends in weather and draws conclusions. While climate change also means the weather will probably respond, random weather events such as a warm day in February aren’t necessarily due to global warming.
Is switching my lightbulbs and driving a hybrid really going to make a difference?
Yes and no. The IPCC also concluded in its recent report that there are already too many greenhouse gases in the atmosphere for us to counteract their effect fast enough. The climate is going to get warmer no matter what we do, and the side effects, whatever you may believe those to be, will come along with that.
But cutting our emissions is still important to reducing these effects and to make a difference in the long run.
These are pretty basic questions, which makes the fact that they’ve been asked by my fellow college students a little disturbing. If college students are confused, who in the general public isn’t?
E-mail Loewenstein at lloewenstein@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.
Global warming is confusing, politicized and further complicated by controversy, which makes it almost impossible to sift through all the information thrown at us by the media, activist groups and politicians. So it makes sense that people are skeptical of global warming.
And the lack of substantive debate about the controversial issues involved with global warming doesn’t help.
In fact, this lack of analytical discussion leaves the public with no real choice but to be confused, or to take sides based on political divides. They consequentially question aspects of global warming that need not be questioned ““ even wondering whether the climate is warming at all.
A good example of this lack of proper debate is the response to Bjorn Lomborg’s book “The Skeptical Environmentalist.”
This book doesn’t deny global warming but rather questions the specifics of what is presented to the public, detailing how the scientific methods used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to determine the effects of fossil fuels on our atmosphere can be used to create hyperboles by activist groups and the media.
Media sources including the Washington Post and The Economist wrote positive reviews of the book. But this was in contrast to the response from parts of the scientific community. The book created quite a stir, with some scientists claiming that since Lomborg is a statistician and not an environmental scientist, he doesn’t have the authority to write such a book.
This is strange considering that the book didn’t attack the science but rather highlighted points of controversy in the research that could be misread. The IPCC was well aware of a number of these, but the public was not. Yet a proper discussion about these controversies didn’t happen.
And people are left just as confused ““ torn between whether to believe scientists or a well-formulated idea heralded by respected media publications.
In order to curb skepticism, people need to feel as if they’re being presented with honest information.
This shouldn’t be difficult considering that many of the questions I’ve come across when talking to people about global warming have relatively straightforward answers:
Is the world really getting warmer, and is this really due to human influences?
Yes and yes. The world is getting warmer, and it is almost definitely human-influenced. The IPCC reports have become successively more sure of this as more analysis is done, with the first volume of the “Climate Change 2007″ report explicitly stating that it is “very likely” that greenhouse gases affect the climate and that it is “unequivocal” that humans have had a direct impact on the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
So the world is going to get warmer ““ so what?
Well, the IPCC predicts that sea levels will very likely rise, and that storms are likely to be more intense.
Some, including the U.S. government, like to point out the potential benefits of the world warming up, namely that it will open up more land for farming.
But predicting the future is a hazy business. According to the National Science Academies, while both the positive and negative side effects of global warming are recognized, the intensity of these effects are debated. But even so, it’s pretty certain that the negative will outweigh the positive.
So Hurricane Katrina was or wasn’t caused by global warming?
Neither. Specific weather events do not constitute climate change. The study of climate looks at trends in weather and draws conclusions. While climate change also means the weather will probably respond, random weather events such as a warm day in February aren’t necessarily due to global warming.
Is switching my lightbulbs and driving a hybrid really going to make a difference?
Yes and no. The IPCC also concluded in its recent report that there are already too many greenhouse gases in the atmosphere for us to counteract their effect fast enough. The climate is going to get warmer no matter what we do, and the side effects, whatever you may believe those to be, will come along with that.
But cutting our emissions is still important to reducing these effects and to make a difference in the long run.
These are pretty basic questions, which makes the fact that they’ve been asked by my fellow college students a little disturbing. If college students are confused, who in the general public isn’t?
E-mail Loewenstein at lloewenstein@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.