Global Warming and the Posture of Skepticism

authordefault
on

I couldnโ€™t believe my eyes when I saw it. There was my latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine โ€“ the โ€œMagazine for Science and Reasonโ€ โ€“ and on the cover were the words:

โ€œLetโ€™s Cool It on Global Warmingโ€“Bjorn Lomborg.โ€

I was stunned.

I started my professional career working for Skeptical Inquirer. My last book was excerpted there, and Iโ€™m currently a contributing editor.

Typically, the magazine debunks real nonsenseโ€“pseudoscience, claims about the paranormal, quack UFO visions, that kind of thing. And Iโ€™m totally with them: Crop circles are a prank, thereโ€™s no Bigfoot or Nessie, and that untested herbal remedy youโ€™re taking might well be dangerous.

And yes: The face on Mars is just an interesting rock formation.

So what on earth was Skeptical Inquirer doing publishing someone like Lomborgโ€“who, as I have shown here at DeSmogBlog, and as others have shown elsewhere, remains scientifically inaccurate when it comes to discussing the real risks posed by global warming?

Lomborg consistentlyโ€“and irresponsiblyโ€“downplays the worst case scenarios that we have to worry about if we just continue to unrepentantly pollute the atmosphere with heat-trapping gases. And sure enough, here he is doing it in Skeptical Inquirer, right at the outset of his article:

Man-made climate change is certainly a problem, but it is categorically not the end of the world. Take the rise in sea levels as one example of how the volume of screaming is unmatched by the facts. In its 2007 report, the United Nations estimates that sea levels will rise about a foot over the remainder of the century. While this is not a trivial amount, it is also important to realize that it is not unknown to mankind: since 1860 we have experienced a sea level rise of about a foot without major disruptionsโ€ฆWe dealt with rising sea levels in the past century, and we will continue to do so in this century. It will be problematic, but it is incorrect to posit the rise as the end of civilization.โ€

This is claimed by Lomborg and Skeptical Inquirer to be the approach supported by โ€œfacts and reason.

But in fact, itโ€™s nothing of the sort.

First of all, itโ€™s not like we can suddenly stop worrying about sea level rise after the year 2100. Furthermore, the United Nations estimate cited by Lomborg is being outrageously misused. That UN report (PDF) fully admitted that its sea level rise projections for the year 2100 do not include โ€œrapid dynamical changes in ice flow.โ€

Which, of course, is what everyone is really afraid of.

Hereโ€™s the glaringly obvious and completely terrifying fact: If we donโ€™t do anything about global warming, if we just let it rip, we run the risk of eventually (no one knows exactly when) destabilizing the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. And if these fall in the ocean weโ€™re talking about a sea level rise of many feet, not inches, and the resultant loss of major coastal cities, like New York.

How do we know this? Well, in a part that Lomborg doesnโ€™t cite, the self-same United Nations report explains: โ€œThe last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 m of sea level rise.โ€

Thatโ€™s the world weโ€™re heading back to if we donโ€™t alter course quickly. In ignoring this fact, in simply pretending that all we have to do is worry about an inch of sea level rise, Lomborg is disqualifying himself from being taken seriously.

So what on earth is Skeptical Inquirer doing publishing him?

I think several things are going on here. One is simply that Lomborg employs the rhetoric of โ€œscience and reasonโ€ even as he actually abandons both. But alas, for someone who doesnโ€™t really know anything about global warming yet prides him or herself for supporting critical thinking, Lomborg might sound convincing.

Still, Skeptical Inquirer certainly ought to know that not everyone who claims to have science on his or her side actually does. Anti-evolutionists claim the support of science. So did tobacco companies. Indeed, they helped spin off an entire โ€œsound science/junk scienceโ€ movement that is basically dedicated to calling good science bad and bad science good.

But I think something else is going on here as well, far beyond naievete. A few issues back, Skeptical Inquirer published a very respectable two-part series of articles by Stuart Jordan laying out the mainstream scientific position on global warming (see here).

This was all to the good.

But perhaps in part because the organized โ€œskepticโ€ movement in the US has so many overlaps with global warming denying free-market libertarianismโ€“for complex reasons that I canโ€™t really address hereโ€“Jordanโ€™s articles caused a Skeptical Inquirer reader uproar, leading to several further responses from the author (see for example here).

And now, suddenly, we find Skeptical Inquirer publishing Lomborg.

I really support Skeptical Inquirer. I want it to do well. But to preserve credibility, it needs to cast aside the skeptic-libertarian readers who simply refuse to accept the overwhelming reality of global warming.

In this sense, publishing Bjorn Lomborgโ€“whose claim to the mantle of science and reason cannot possibly be sustainedโ€“was a huge step backward.

authordefault
Admin's short bio, lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Voluptate maxime officiis sed aliquam! Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit.

Related Posts

Analysis
on

The former Canadian prime minister with close ties to current Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre was attending an energy panel in New Delhi, India.

The former Canadian prime minister with close ties to current Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre was attending an energy panel in New Delhi, India.
on

After donating heavily to Trumpโ€™s reelection, Big Oil is just catching on that the president's policies can hurt them too, anonymous survey of industry executives reveals.

After donating heavily to Trumpโ€™s reelection, Big Oil is just catching on that the president's policies can hurt them too, anonymous survey of industry executives reveals.
on

The UK media baron trebled his shareholding in Tesla, while his outlets pumped out pro-Musk content.

The UK media baron trebled his shareholding in Tesla, while his outlets pumped out pro-Musk content.
on

Importing fracked gas during a trade war undermines Canadaโ€™s energy security, environmentalists warn premier.

Importing fracked gas during a trade war undermines Canadaโ€™s energy security, environmentalists warn premier.