Climate, confidence, and cost
Comment on Citizens’ changing view of climate emergency
The Wall Street Journal took notice when a parliamentary seat came open and the central debate turned on the cost of climate change mitigation in the form of automobile taxes.1 The nexus between the precautionary principle, confidence, and observation engenders a vigorous debate on an argument the human race is hurtling the world to catastrophe in a few short years by producing carbon dioxide in quantities greater than nature can absorb.
A laboratory experiment and a one-off uncontrolled experiment
There is a well-known effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide radiant energy capture demonstrated on laboratory scale by John Tyndall in the 19th century.2 Since that time, more experiments and investigations have been conducted to confirm that the scientific principle of atmospheric carbon dioxide’s effect on earth’s temperature is correct. Most of the political (and scientific) debate has been towards confirming a correlation of “average earth temperature” and atmospheric carbon dioxide. In my view, challenges to the correlation (that is, causality-based discourse) has been stifled. This kind of activity deviates from typical scientific inquiry — no true scientist believes they are fully correct in their theories:
So the more specific the rule, the more powerful it is, the more liable it is to exceptions, and the more interesting and valuable it is to check.3
The term climate change as a theoretical basis for observed outcomes may not substantially differ from Feynman’s “oomph” theory of gravity.4
The earth’s “average temperature”, as best as we can measure it, is increasing. To date, no accurate correlation tied to causality has been verified or calibrated to the point that the carbon dioxide contribution to average temperature, at each local temperature measurement in the average “global warming model” can be predicted say, over a ten year period.
Observations and the citizenry
It is reasonable to think that obtaining a model capable of predicting temperatures at any arbitrary location on earth decades into the future, is an intractable task. Many variables and their individual contributions, level, and arrival timing are the primary confounding elements. Predicting the future interactions of all causal elements such that the effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide contribution to earth’s average temperature is isolated is well, not currently possible.
… there is wisdom as well as error in public attitudes and perceptions. Lay people sometimes lack certain information about hazards. However, their basic conceptualization of risk is much richer than that of the experts and reflects legitimate concerns that are typically omitted from expert risk assessments. As a result, risk communication and risk management efforts are destined to fail unless they are structured as a two-way process. Each side, expert and public, has something valid to contribute. Each side must respect the insights and intelligence of the other.5
It seems that the voters in Great Britain might now be questioning the omniscience of politicians and scientists who assert they are able to predict how citizens’ actions will affect earth’s average temperature, especially regarding their atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions and the effect of them on earth’s average temperature.
The “average earth temperature” obtained from reduced data sets certainly show increasing temperature. In my opinion, some, perhaps many, citizens have begun to wonder about the theories and if they properly assess changes to earth’s average temperature caused by the citizenry. My further opinion is citizens may be aware that a “one off” uncontrolled experiment (simply measuring what you see) that involves a plethora of significant variables can be highly suspect. That is, isolating the contribution of each important variable and checking the outcome against a theory of behavior is simply not available to humans.
So what?
Over the past several years some scientists and citizens have made forceful and sometimes extreme claims about a climate emergency. Declarations of extreme outcomes that fail to materialize tend to lead to sub-optimal solutions.
In the Aesop Fable stories one is titled “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”.6 In the story, a boy liked to see the citizens of his village become upset and take action when he cried out there was a wolf about to kill sheep when there was no wolf. So when a wolf actually does arrive, the boy’s cries are to no avail as he had tricked the citizens too many times.
Again, it is clear there is a change in the earth’s temperature, at least as far as the data made available show. There is an easily confirmed physical theory about the effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide on energy capture — the “greenhouse effect”. The precautionary principle applies — citizens should take action to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide to the extent they contribute to it — such action should help, but no one can say how much.
This is the risk: If outrageous claims and extreme measures are promulgated and advocated, citizens are put in the mind of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”. Extreme measures are likely to be resisted when less extreme measures could be proposed in the context of the true state of knowledge.
To read more of Ernie ‘s writing and research, go to Ernie ‘s newsletter or ORCiD.
See, for example, Tyndall, John. "XXIII. On the absorption and radiation of heat by gases and vapours, and on the physical connexion of radiation, absorption, and conduction.—The bakerian lecture." The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 22, no. 146 (1861): 169-194.
Feynman, Richard P. The meaning of it all: Thoughts of a citizen-scientist. Basic Books, 2009.
ibid.
Lewens, Tim, ed. Risk: philosophical perspectives. Routledge, 2007.
Aesop, a slave who lived in Greece between 620 and 564 BCE is believed to have authored several stories that usually illustrate a moral principle.