Why is the climate change debate so often framed in terms of whether or not it's due to human activity?

113

9

This one has been puzzling me. When I hear debates about climate change, very often it seems like the debate has been centered around whether or not it is caused by human activity.

To me this aspect feels like a complete red herring.

Presumably both sides would agree that if there is climate change, and if it would be sufficiently harmful (to the planet or to human activity, take your pick) then naturally we would try to reduce it. That's the case whether or not it was human-caused, all that matters is whether there's evidence of change, and whether enough people feel that the prospective/projected climate change we're seeing, would be harmful enough if we don't act globally to deliberately reduce the amount of heat trapped by the earth.

As a (poor) analogy, arguing whether or not it's human-caused feels a bit like planning to develop real estate on a seaside clifftop which some specialists have said might suffer dangerous erosion in the next 70 years unless you put up some seawalls to prevent water action at the base of the cliff - and basing your view whether to build seawalls and other erosion defences upon whether or not there's proof that human activity would be the cause of any future erosion, rather than whether or not erosion is likely and if so how harmful it might be to your interests if nothing is done to reduce it.

Put another way - who cares if it's human caused and why would that be relevant in the debate?

  • We can agree if the earth were to retain heat to an extent that global temperatures slightly rise by a couple or so degrees, it would be harmful to us (whatever the cause of that rise).
  • We can also agree that as a species, we have the ability to cause an increase or decrease to that retention of heat by our industrial and technical activities.
  • So the question surely is whether there is good evidence it's a risk, how big the risk is, and whether the projected impact is likely and sufficient to undertake measures to offset it by reducing the earth's heat retention.

That's classic cost/benefit/likelihood decision-making, and has no relation to any cause of any warming, which seems like a red herring.

So why is the climate change debate so often framed in terms of human cause rather than whether or not it's actually happening or a risk? It's not like, were the same degree of projected climate change present but not human caused, the harm to us would be any different.

Update/note: To be clear, I'm not asking for views whether or not climate change is true, if we have the ability to change it for good or bad, what evidence exists, whether people want or oppose change, or anything like that. I'm specifically looking at why the debate so often gets framed round a point that seems to be a red herring whatever the side one is on.

Stilez

Posted 2017-11-02T14:42:35.180

Reputation: 5 704

Scientist are far from overwhelming consensus that significant climate change is occurring and much less agreement that climate change is even dangerous. – user2617804 – 2020-01-19T15:16:24.530

Comments deleted. Please note that comments on questions should have the primary goal to improve the question. They are not supposed to answer the question or to discuss the subject matter of the question. For more information on comments, please check the help of the Commenting privilege.

– Philipp – 2017-11-03T08:31:57.950

3"When I hear debates about climate change, very often it seems like the debate has been centered around whether or not it is caused by human activity." I don't hear this very often when hearing debates about climate change. – Trilarion – 2017-11-03T11:11:16.563

9I can't post this as an answer because I have no rep on this site, but this probably is in part down to people's inherent bias against things caused by humans. If climate change is "natural", that (to a lot of people) means it must be a good thing, or for the greater good of nature - see the craze with people who want natural as opposed to artificial ingredients in their food, etc. – Muzer – 2017-11-03T14:45:24.483

@Trilarion The term is "anthropogenic climate change". The consensus appears to be that anthropogenic climate change is real. Many climate change deniers say that climate change is happening but it is nonanthropogenic. – emory – 2017-11-06T00:51:55.117

1@emory Ah, that explains it. I just don't hear very much from climate change deniers here. They are a very small minority here. They surely exist somewhere, but the view is just not very popular. – Trilarion – 2017-11-06T08:18:33.860

@Trilarion Our greatly esteemed leader Donald J Trump said “I’m not a believer in man-made global warming. It could be warming, and it’s going to start to cool at some point." That is one of many contradictory opinions Trump has offered on global warming. He concedes that global warming may be real, but at the same time says we should not do anything about it because "nature will heal itself". It is not our fault. Shit happens. – emory – 2017-11-06T09:34:57.977

3@Muzer: It does make some sense though. When you boil down the argument for green living, it is "We are interfering with the ecosystem. We shouldn't be doing that. We should be ecologically invisible." But if it turns out that climate change is (wholly) natural, that means that the core of the outcome gets inverted: in order to not interfere with the ecosystem and remain ecologically invisible, we should then not artificially prevent climate change. Just like how humans are not to blame for natural animal extinctions, so too are they not to blame for natural climate change. – Flater – 2017-11-06T13:29:58.823

@Muzer: To finish my thought, it's an interesting weak spot in human morality. If climate change is manmade, then we feel morally obligated to do everything to prevent it from happening. But when you apply the same principles of ecological invisibility (which is the core ideology that green parties tend to preach) when climate change is natural, then we are morally obligated to let it happen, yet we will still want to interfere in minor ways, in the interest of preserving human life. – Flater – 2017-11-06T13:33:23.990

Climate change is such a rubbery concept that you can say it constantly changes or it never changes- temperatures will never reach 1K or 20000 K on Earth. – user2617804 – 2017-11-07T00:10:13.700

@emory But Trump just states this and does not give any (many serious) scientific arguments for it. The other side, however, gives plenty. Therefore it can have only one goal: creating confusion for personal gain. It's really a simple question here to answer then. Or do you suggest he genuinely believes in this without many facts to back it up? Some kind of crazy quasi-religious believe of "nature committing suicide". Not sure what would be more scary. – Trilarion – 2017-11-07T08:49:00.480

@Trilarion Nature just is. It doesn't have goals or ethics, we do. Just look at all the massive catastrophes all over the Earth's history (or how Venus and Mars look now!) - nature doesn't care. It doesn't have the capacity. If we want a nice living environment, that's our job. Nature isn't going to help. Whether that's a colder or hotter environment is irrelevant - we need to be the ones doing it. As for scientific arguments... there's plenty on all the sides of the debate (yes, there's far more than two sides). There's also plenty of political arguments on all sides. It's complicated. – Luaan – 2017-11-07T09:57:23.740

1@Luaan I agree that nature has no will, but I don't know if this actually means much. For me the situation is fairly simple and clear. We affect our environment and we choose how we affect it. Simple as that. As for scientific arguments on all sides, I extremely doubt that. I'm a scientist myself and I can say that science is overwhelmingly on only one side. Really. It's not even remotely balanced there. But apart from that I can only say: We will get what we deserve. – Trilarion – 2017-11-07T10:02:40.603

1@Trilarion you are correct to question whether Trump sincerely believes all the things he says. However, in this case I think Trump is speaking obvious truths: at some point in the future (maybe not in our lifetimes, but before it burns up in the sun), the earth will cool down. The problem is that he presents these obvious truths out of context to encourage people to draw false inferences (we don't have to do anything b/c the earth will cool down by itself). – emory – 2017-11-07T12:33:20.980

3@emory Any obvious truth presented out of context and with the purpose of confusing people is very close to if not exactly equivalent to a lie. Anyway, the important truth here probably should be that the Earth will get much hotter before it may eventually get colder again, long after all the detrimental effects of hotness will have taken place. Everyone should care much more about the immediate future than about the very distant future. This question here is just if Trump does deep down really believe anything what he is saying about the climate or not. I guess not but who knows. – Trilarion – 2017-11-07T12:57:18.327

imho, if its harmful for the planet, it is going to be harmful for human activity sooner or later. There is no taking a pick here. – user3526 – 2017-11-08T05:23:32.100

It's very relevant in terms of liability, responsibility, and culpability. – Ed Kideys – 2017-11-08T19:00:15.943

Answers

186

The reason is that if climate change would not be human-caused, then humans would not be able to prevent it by scaling down their greenhouse gas emissions.

The chain of reasoning which is most supported by the scientific data we currently have available (check earth science stackexchange for more information) is:

  1. Our industry creates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses
  2. Those greenhouse gasses increase the global temperature
  3. That global temperature will cause severe economic damage in the future
  4. Therefore, in order to secure our future economy, we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, even if it's bad for the economy today.

But when our industry would not be responsible for the raise in global temperature, that chain of reasoning would be irrelevant:

  1. The greenhouse gasses emitted by our industry only have a negligible impact on the world climate.
  2. Which would mean that reducing them would also have a negligible impact on the world climate.
  3. Which would mean that the economic damage caused by raising temperature is inevitable
  4. Which would lead to the conclusion that reducing our greenhouse gas production today would be a pointless endeavor which would restrict our economy today for no tangible benefit in the future.

As you can see, the answer to the question about whether or not climate change is man-made has a direct impact on which policies should be enacted to solve this problem.

There are people who have a direct business interest in preventing any policies which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because these would have a negative financial impact on them. There are also people who have ideological reasons for opposing government-imposed economy regulations. The best way to prevent these policies from being enacted is to cast doubt on the causality chain outlined above.

Philipp

Posted 2017-11-02T14:42:35.180

Reputation: 55 858

4In that case, why is the debate so emphatic about "humans aren't culpable" (which seems irrelevant) and not on the takeaway point that you'd expect to be held, which is "sorry, humans can't do anything about it"? – Stilez – 2017-11-02T16:37:19.017

55@Stilez Because the second statement is the direct corollary of the first. Also, the second is not necessarily true. There are some ideas around for geoengineering mega-projects which might counter global warming. These would be even more expensive than just reducing greenhouse gas emissions (and carry other risks which are hard to calculate), but that cost would not be paid by the current greenhouse gas emitters, especially if they can convince the public that it's not their fault. – Philipp – 2017-11-02T16:41:25.670

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

– Sam I am says Reinstate Monica – 2017-11-03T17:36:05.673

10"There are people who have a direct business interest in preventing any policies which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and there are also people who have a direct business interest in getting policies which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions enacted." It goes both ways. – Wilbert – 2017-11-06T11:54:36.817

3@Wilbert Agreed. This answer is clearly biased in the last paragraph, attempting to paint that only one-side of this debate cares about the policies on the greenhouse gas emissions. Same with ideological reason - there's also many people with ideological reason for supporting goverment-imposed economy regulations. – James H – 2017-11-13T00:55:50.990

80

As long as we're still debating the nature of the problem, we don't have to actually address it.

This is perhaps a cynical view, but I see this as a misdirection: "if you don't like what people are saying, change the conversation."

You're right that whether or not humans caused it is somewhat tangential - either way it's happening and we need to deal with it. The problem is that combating climate change is massively disruptive. Changing our routines is uncomfortable. Retrofitting all of our industries is expensive. Reducing oil dependence reduces profits and strains some international relations. None of us really want to deal with this.

We're past the point where we can seriously debate whether climate change is real (it's frighteningly real), so rather than admitting defeat and moving on to the "what painful things must do about it?" debate, those who are resistant to taking action have shifted the conversation. It's tougher to prove that we're at fault, but more importantly it's simply a new debate. As long as we're still debating the nature of the problem, we don't have to actually address it. This debate also lets the resistant leverage the "if it's natural, it must be good" sentiment that advertisers have been driving into us since time immemorial.

If we ever conclusively prove climate change is human-caused, expect another shift of the goalposts. Probably international finger-pointing, "They're currently producing more greenhouse gases!", "Yeah, but they had their industrial revolution first!", "Their emissions are low now, but their historical cumulative emissions are higher!"

Carl Kevinson

Posted 2017-11-02T14:42:35.180

Reputation: 1 125

3Effectively "If we can feel we didn't cause it, we have less responsibility to care about it, and meantime I want my conveniences and this means I can avoid putting thought into it"? Is that a paraphrase? (If there's a comment on this, might be best to update the answer rather than a thread of comments on it) – Stilez – 2017-11-02T16:29:18.030

8"We're past the point where we can seriously debate whether climate change is real " Do you mean as a society, separated from the scientific facts? That may be true for most of the world, but I don't think it's true for the US, where deniers are still common and hold key positions in government (if you disagree, sources would be great!). If you mean scientifically, we are also past the point were we can seriously debate human involvement in climate change. – tim – 2017-11-02T16:45:15.683

1@Stilez You've got it, that's pretty much what I'm trying to say. If we can say it's not our fault, that means we don't need to take action. – Carl Kevinson – 2017-11-02T16:57:11.530

9@tim I mean as a society. I'm not sure how to provide a source for that, but I think the fact that we're debating human involvement indicates the deniers have stopped debating whether it exists. They haven't admitted it exists, but they have largely stopped debating that it doesn't. – Carl Kevinson – 2017-11-02T16:59:35.970

28If we ever conclusively prove climate change is human-caused done. – Tobia Tesan – 2017-11-03T00:24:03.330

12Often the people doing the most blocking (politicians, owners of huge companies) are so old that it is not something they need to worry about. As long as the supply of yachts and blondes keep coming they are not going to change their behaviour. – RedSonja – 2017-11-03T07:05:27.137

4@TobiaTesan p < 0.05 isn't "conclusive proof." Very likely, sure. Conclusive proof, no. – reirab – 2017-11-03T15:33:44.417

1@TobiaTesan The problem is not just that it's still pretty likely the conclusion isn't true; it's also the gaming of the system. If you only keep collecting data until you cross the 0.05 threshold, you're abusing statistics to prove your point. This is a massive epidemic in modern science journals (further made worse by refusals to publish repeat studies, even if they prove the opposite result!), so make sure to check the methodology used in gathering and processing the data. You can prove anything you want if you tweak the methodology just the right way. – Luaan – 2017-11-07T10:01:30.653

3@Luaan sure, and "if you torture data long enough, nature will confess", and "to consult the statistician after an experiment is finished is merely to ask him to conduct a post mortem examination". Nevertheless, when the IPCC reports that "warming of [atmosphere and oceans] is unequivocal" and "it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause", I would expect that they did check the methdology instead of randomly collecting some p-values from shady papers. For what little I know it appears to match the scientific consensus too. – Tobia Tesan – 2017-11-07T13:43:38.823

4@Luaan when you say that "it's still pretty likely the conclusion isn't true" what do you mean? This seems to contradict the IPCC report, several review papers and pretty much every scientific body. In other disciplines, when I see a similar situation in literature, I take that as "yeah, it's like that". I don't know the first thing about meteorology and earth sciences, though, so I'd like to know more. – Tobia Tesan – 2017-11-07T13:51:43.627

3We will prolong taking action by debating if humans caused it. If proved to be humans, we will again prolong taking action by trying to decide which particular group of humans (aka countries) can be blamed/made to pay for it. Poltics. – user3526 – 2017-11-08T05:30:14.170

1@TobiaTesan I wasn't really talking about the IPCC or climate change in particular, just interpreting any results in general. I've seen enough conclusions that entirely contradicted the papers they were allegedly based on to get a lot more sceptical about any interpretation. And I don't see anything special about the IPCC (I didn't study their methodologies) or "scientific consensus" (scientists aren't much more resistant to human biases on average) to tip the scale. Just being a majority or an authority isn't enough for me, and there's certainly plenty at stake either way. – Luaan – 2017-11-08T15:08:57.237

22

The debate is important because it informs the actions that can be taken.

If climate change is mostly caused by human activity, then climate change can be managed using the same mechanisms. i.e. If more car pollution implies increasing temperatures, then less car pollution implies a cessation of increasing temperatures.

On the other hand, if climate change isn't caused by human activity then it is unlikely we have any technical means to change that. For example, if climate change is being caused by an increase in solar output, then there doesn't seem to be anything we can do to reduce that.

user7809

Posted 2017-11-02T14:42:35.180

Reputation:

This seems the same point @Philippe makes. See my comment to his answer for my question about it. – Stilez – 2017-11-02T16:38:00.330

4I still find it perplexing. Assuming that climate change was caused by an increase in solar output (which it is not), we would still have to do something about it (e.g., move coastal communities to higher ground, prepare for stronger hurricanes, etc). If you genuinely believe in nonanthropogenic global warming then you would not order federal agencies to not take into account global warming when considering federal infrastructure projects (let us build in the areas scientists predict will soon be claimed by the sea). – emory – 2017-11-06T11:54:23.197

@emory The question isn't about whether or not climate change is real, but whether it's caused by human activity. So therefor this answer only mentions reducing global warming.

That said, in a lot of cases climate change itself is questioned, in which case: there is no danger, so there is no need to deal with it. But again, that's a different question. – Patrick Huizinga – 2017-11-06T16:43:30.133

5The science is settled now, there is no serious doubt as to humans being the cause of global warming, so I don't think that's the reason why it keeps being questioned. The purpose of re-hashing the argument and denying the undeniable evidence is to avoid making the inevitable decision to act. – user – 2017-11-06T17:01:21.180

20

The question of whether or not humans cause climate change matters because for many people an answer of 'no' will remove the need to act, and even if the answer is 'yes' it helps determine who should pay.

Why people might think that we can only do something if humans are currently causing climate change

Let's pull up a truth table of sorts:

  1. Humans don't cause climate change, but humans can change the climate
  2. Humans don't cause climate change, and humans cannot change it now
  3. Humans are causing climate change, and humans can change the climate
  4. Humans are causing climate change, but humans cannot change it now

Your comments and question indicate that you don't see why #1 can seem absurd. The best way I can help you see is to rephrase it a little: "Despite hundreds of years of industry on an unparalled scale, humans haven't changed the environment. However, we somehow could if we tried."

That being said, regardless of whether or not you see the absurdity of #1 and #4, many people do, which means that only options #2 and #3 are available for them. If you can then show that humans don't cause climate change, then only #2 (and possibly #4, which has the same conclusion) is left, and it means that we have no obligation to try and do anything about it. Therefore, people who find #1 absurd can determine whether or not we should do anything about climate change by determining whether or not humans are causing it.

Why people who think we can do something still care about 'blame'

However, many people believe that #3 and #1 are the most true statements. We can change the climate back or at least hold it in place. Let's see why blame still matters here...

Let's assume that humanity has decided to rationally debate climate change as a collective, global body. (This is, of course, flying the face of all recorded history and psychology.) Now, let's continue and assume that everybody agrees that there is climate change, it will be harmful to human activity, and there is a way to stop/reduce it.

Fantastic!! Now who's going to pay for it??

Nobody likes paying for stuff. Friends argue over splitting a bill, roommates argue over utilities, spouses argue over dishes, etc. The easiest and most common way of assigning responsibility for payment is to assign 'blame'.

  • You ordered dessert and an appetizer, so you should pay more.
  • You take 2-hour-long showers, so I'll pay garbage and you pay for water.
  • You're right, sweetheart

Therefore, blame still matters, since we've got to figure out how to pay for it. Also, if you are busy proving that humans are causing climate change, you can probably pinpoint which humans are causing climate change and then we really know who to 'blame' and make pay for it. Invest in torches and pitchforks

Jeutnarg

Posted 2017-11-02T14:42:35.180

Reputation: 472

11In a single word: liability. +1 – Mazura – 2017-11-02T19:17:59.087

7Despite 70 years of having nuclear weapons, humans haven’t rendered the Earth a radioactive wasteland. But I’ve no doubt that we could if we tried. Obviously, climate change is caused by human emissions - but that doesn’t mean that the first statement is logically true. If humanity decided that the issue with Earth was that is wasn’t covered in enough radioactive ash, we could and would do something about it - despite the fact that humanity is in no way responsible for Earth’s current nuclear-wasteland-free state. – Obie 2.0 – 2017-11-02T21:12:05.917

1To be more pertinent, if for some reason the planet started getting cooler, humans could readily raise the temperature through increasing carbon dioxide emissions, regardless of the original reason for the cooling. It wouldn’t matter whether it was because of massive, natural volcanic eruptions, or because of human-created particulate pollution. – Obie 2.0 – 2017-11-02T21:18:16.963

9#1 is not absurd. We could cause nuclear winter at will. Yes, this will stop global warming. No, we don't want to do it. – Joshua – 2017-11-02T21:24:48.533

1@Joshua - Sounds like you agree with me? ;) – Obie 2.0 – 2017-11-02T21:26:04.990

@Obie2.0 The question of which one (#1, #2, #3, or #4) is the exact current situation is beyond the scope of this answer and the question as posted. I'm trying to explain why debate focuses on blame when people are capable of believing any of the four options and why it matters even if you believe #1 or #3. I've also tried very hard to make as few assumptions as possible, so I cannot simply say that #3 is the case and run from there. – Jeutnarg – 2017-11-02T21:26:56.243

1I agree, it’s a good answer. :) I’m just saying that #1 isn’t an absurd situation. It’s just one that doesn’t pertain in the current case of anthropogenic climate change. But it’s easy enough to cook up a situation where it would make sense. – Obie 2.0 – 2017-11-02T21:28:15.517

@Obie2.0: if it were obvious, there would be no debate. While I am inclined to agree with those who think folks are trying to evade responsibility, nevertheless, consider: if it is caused by ‘X’ then changing ‘Y’ is not going to help. – WGroleau – 2017-11-02T21:45:40.327

2@WGroleau - That’s not true, exactly. Or to be more accurate, you have to be very careful how X and Y are defined in such an argument. For example, a house fire might be caused by the presence of a lit match. But more fundamentally, it’s caused by the availability of oxygen, so changing that can eliminate the fire. Obviously, these may not apply to anthropogenic climate change, but understanding the possibility is important. – Obie 2.0 – 2017-11-02T21:54:06.123

For example, aerosol injections are a proposed direct method of reducing temperatures that aren’t terribly depend on what caused the increased temperatures in the first place. Obviously, they’d be most effective in conjunction with decreased emissions, though.

– Obie 2.0 – 2017-11-02T21:56:05.017

1Of course it is often possible to alleviate a problem without addressing the cause. Medical doctors do it all the time. :-) But that is rarely the best way, and generally the cause must be addressed. – WGroleau – 2017-11-02T23:37:03.737

2@Joshua We're not sure we could. It's just a scenario that comes as a result of some simulations. It still relies on tons of assumptions, and it's based on tons of models and calculations that probably haven't been revised since nuclear weapons "got big". Just because it's a common topic in sci-fi doesn't mean it's actually something we can do. It may be, yes, but nobody really wants to try (luckily). Yes, it makes sense, if fits some models nicely, but those kinds of predictions still fail all the time. – Luaan – 2017-11-07T10:08:13.437

5

Question: if climate change is not human caused, how could we make it not happen?

The assumption is that increased carbon dioxide in the air, caused by humans (not really disputed by anyone), is causing climate change (colloquially known as global warming even though some of its results are cooler weather). If it's not the increased carbon dioxide though, then what should we do about climate change?

The only real climate change solutions that I have seen are to reduce carbon dioxide in the air by having human activity emit less of it. If increased carbon dioxide is not the cause of climate change, then why would reducing carbon dioxide reverse climate change? Or affect climate in any way? If increasing it doesn't matter, then reducing it most likely wouldn't matter either.

If climate change is not a result of humans putting increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the air, then what action are you recommending that humans take? Eliminate sunspots? Change the planet's orbit? Build a sun shield?

Or are you thinking smaller? Individuals who have been moving south to embrace warm winters could move north instead. No government policy required, just individual action.

The general belief of those who embrace the explanation of natural climate change is that if we wait long enough the world will get cooler again. After all, when the industrial revolution started, trends looked to be leading towards another ice age.

If average warming is instead caused by increased carbon dioxide, then a cooling trend is unlikely to start on its own. We are actively pushing against it. The warming will continue as we add more and more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. "Just wait and it will fix itself" is not practical in that view.

Accepting the denier's view that human activity is not causing climate change would also preclude the natural solution to human-caused climate change. Because the diagnosis and the treatment are tied together.

"I don't believe that humans are causing climate change, but I believe that reducing carbon emissions might reverse climate change." Why? If climate change is not caused by increased carbon emissions, why would reducing them do anything?

TL;DR: Human caused climate change has one solution (stop causing it by stopping the causal behavior). Natural climate change would have a different solution, if solvable at all.

Brythan

Posted 2017-11-02T14:42:35.180

Reputation: 86 095

1Carbon sequestration has been actively researched, it just hasn't been anywhere near as successful as source mitigation and usage reduction. – SilverbackNet – 2017-11-04T04:00:10.040

1@SilverbackNet Nearly a quarter of global carbon emissions are from 3rd world slash and burn agriculture. I suspect a great deal of carbon is also sourced from 3rd world industrial expansion. I have yet to see a single "source mitigation" plan that included curtailing the 3rd world. It is nearly exclusive in it's damning of the 1st world, out of 'fairness' toward letting the 3rd world catch up industrially with the 1st. – Jack Of All Trades 234 – 2017-11-07T13:37:56.483

2@JackOfAllTrades234 - slash and burn means that the plants being burned have just removed that CO2 from the atmosphere. Not great, but the carbon has to first be removed by those plants (either very short term or on a scale of decades or centuries) before burning them can put it back into the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels reintroduces carbon that has been out of circulation for millions of years, on a massive scale. Not at all the same thing. – PoloHoleSet – 2017-11-07T22:10:33.797

3

To my mind the two main standpoints currently are:

1) There is no climate change.

2) There is a climate change caused by, or at least highly influenced by, human activity.

The effect of standpoint 1: As there is no climate change, there is no need to prepare for the non-existant effects.

As far as I can understand US politics (you can never really understand the politics of a foreign country) the Trump adminstration adheres to standpoint 1.

Large parts of the World countries, inluding UN, adheres closer to standpoint 2.

ghellquist

Posted 2017-11-02T14:42:35.180

Reputation: 264

So nobody holds standpoint 1.5) "There appear to be more severe storms and abberant weather patterns, these patterns that are seemingly more common are certainly damaging to our interests; it's possible that whatever their cause, they seem to be on a scale that can changing our behaviour could positively effect them (by reducing them)" ? That doesn't require a position on science or culpability, so where are the standholders for that view? Or if none, why so excluded? – Stilez – 2017-11-02T16:35:05.583

10I've NEVER met anyone who believes the first standpoint (Trump does not). And I don't see how anyone could. Point One should be "climate change isn't cause by human activity" or "this climate change is normal" (which are both closer to what Trump thinks). I'd really like to see sources to people saying that there is no climate change. I assume it's just a troll movement like flat-earthers IF it indeed exists at all. – None – 2017-11-02T18:38:41.877

9@AytAyt that is objectively provable that there are politicians that believe in #1. Even Trump himself: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." – None – 2017-11-02T20:08:10.350

6(To be fair, there can be a gigantic difference between "believe" and "pretends to believe", of course) – None – 2017-11-02T20:08:34.610

@blip I admittedly have avoided what he has said recently because of extreme anxiety and dismay. I should have said that ORIGINALLY he was saying it more along the lines of my previous comment. More "this is normal." But after your comment I looked it up, and very unfortunately, you are right. Little depressed now, but +1 for the correction, thanks. – None – 2017-11-02T21:00:27.070

2@AytAyt sorry to add to the anxiety. I know there's enough of it out there these days. :/ – None – 2017-11-02T21:02:14.090

2The Earth's climate has always been changing. Phrases like "climate change", however, are buzzwords which is are used disingenuously by saying that anyone who does believe in "climate change" believes that humans activities are adversely influencing the climate, and those who don't believe that the climate is completely static and unchanging. – supercat – 2017-11-02T21:56:01.720

5@supercat - No, “climate change” was adopted because it describes a more complex phenomenon than global warming, or at least seems to. Basically, it more clearly implies that (time-averaged) temperatures need not rise at every point on Earth, even though (time and space) averaged temperatures will. It also implies more complex atmospheric phenomena, such as increased storms and flooding. – Obie 2.0 – 2017-11-02T22:02:33.020

@Obie2.0 : "climate change" was introduced (I think by the Bush administration) because it sounded less scary than "global warming". It was not originally a term from friends of the concept. It was then adopted because of the reasons you describe. – Martin Bonner supports Monica – 2017-11-03T10:02:14.083

@MartinBonner - All the better, then. That climate scientists adopted the better term, and didn't worry about its political origin, gives lie to the frequent claims that such research is political in nature. – Obie 2.0 – 2017-11-03T10:16:19.207

But this isn't quite right. Bush allies were fans of the term, because it sounded less threatening, but it had been in use, to a lesser extent, for a long time previous. – Obie 2.0 – 2017-11-03T10:18:46.450

Some in the community are trying to introduce the phrase global change, because it's about much more than climate. The same CO₂ that accelerates climate change / anthropogenic global warming, also causes ocean acidification which is killing the coral reefs and thus severely harming ecosystems depending on them. Then there's the ozone hole, deforestation, air pollution, and all the other ways in which human activity is causing global change. Those are all linked, physically and politically. – gerrit – 2017-11-03T11:17:29.137

3

If we were not looking looking at "human-caused," and looked at "the climate is warmer because the sun is warming and will continue to warm until the entire planet's atmosphere is burned away,".... what, exactly is our possible intervention for stopping the sun? We look at what we can control or mitigate.

If our actions cause a problem, then it certainly is in our power to mitigate it, or at least examine our actions in the context of what we can do to lessen our impact. Not so with events beyond our ability to control or impact.

Logically, those elements most easily within our control would be the easiest to impact.

There is also the factor of the phoniness of the debate and how that has evolved. Initially the denial was that warming was happening, at all. The common denialist claims is "well, we're not certain" - whether it's global warming, cigarette health effects, the effects of lead, or coal plants and mercury - so initially it was "we don't really know it's happening." Since the evidence became so overwhelming that this phony denial couldn't even be made by the denialists, it then became "it's not caused by humans, so we have to adapt instead of intervene," or "it's part of a natural cycle of fluctuations, and it will go away by itself, so it would be foolish to try and intervene."

So, to your specific analogy, if we can't control it, we just have to live with it, adapt and not change the underlying (and profitable, for some) behaviors that we would if we could control it. To make another analogy, it's the difference between getting stitches and bandages for wounds after the fact, if there's no way to stop your injuries, or getting the guy with the knife in front of your office building, every morning, to stop stabbing you as you go by.

The science is solid, and those possibilities have been examined and have, over time, been pushed aside for more valid arguments. These denialist claims have all the intended validity of the previous ones, but it's all part of a concerted strategy of obfuscation where they muddy the waters, grudgingly eventually concede the established facts, and move onto the next set of facts to dispute and spend time "debating," thus delaying action.

... the report affirms that climate change is driven almost entirely by human action....

"... For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence."

Washington Post: Government Scientific Report on Climate Change Released

PoloHoleSet

Posted 2017-11-02T14:42:35.180

Reputation: 19 833

4Any time I hear something along the lines of "the science is settled!", I cringe at the reality of what our scientific community has become. This applies to any number of controversial scientific subjects for which dissent means a ruined career. – Jack Of All Trades 234 – 2017-11-07T13:23:49.690

5@JackOfAllTrades234 - that doesn't mean that there's nothing to learn or in dispute within the subject matter. It just means that this particular aspect, which has been studied for decades, is no longer in question and they've moved on to the next level, so to speak. If you want to tell me about issues you see with traffic infrastructure, and I keep demanding that you first establish that internal combustion is actually a thing, and that it does have the ability to power a motor vehicle, you'd never make any progress because you'd be re-proving what has been proven. – PoloHoleSet – 2017-11-07T14:50:28.750

4I'm not sure I've ever encountered anyone that had completely disregarded climate change as existing, as your analogy would appear to imply. What troubles me is how willingly man made climate change proponents ignore any and all evidence that suggests the change might be a natural cycle(Holocene temperature variations have high points far in excess of our current temperatures for example). To merely question the church of man made climate change is heresy in academia, and it is that almost religious aspect that bothers me. – Jack Of All Trades 234 – 2017-11-07T15:28:37.567

1

I've frequently heard that there is a church of man made climate change, but I never seem to be able to book it for weddings. A quick google search shows some academics a discussion of how data from the holocene contradicts existing climate models (http://www.pnas.org/content/111/34/E3501.full), and some evidence that the data was faulty rather than the model (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jun/14/new-research-may-resolve-a-climate-conundrum-across-the-history-of-human-civilization). It doesn't seem ignored.

– gmatht – 2017-11-07T17:00:51.217

3@JackOfAllTrades234 - If you've never seen that, then you haven't been paying attention. That has been a claim, and continues to be a claim in slightly modified fashion (see the ridiculous "we've been cooling since 1998" argument that still gets circulation). And those talking points had no credibility when being used. It reached the point where people repeating it just advertised themselves as foolish, so they moved onto the next point not really in dispute, but one that hasn't been so repeatedly debunked that everyone is familiar with the lack of credibility - that it's not man-made. – PoloHoleSet – 2017-11-07T19:41:36.037

2@JackOfAllTrades234 - They understand the mechanisms at work, and can point to specific events and conditions that caused that spike. None of those conditions are at work now. The fact that a massive asteroid impact caused global cooling would not magically mean that, if we had massive particulate pollution, we could not determine that cooling was caused by that, especially absent a modern asteroid collision. What bothers me is when people like you pretend that the scientist haven't explored these things, when they have. Exhaustively. These possibilities are not new or novel. – PoloHoleSet – 2017-11-07T19:47:45.970

2

Because there is a lot of policy being proposed or enacted on the basis of preventing or reversing it. If it was not caused by human activity, but is something that happens regardless of what humans do, trying to do stop or reverse it is obviously a waste of time, money and effort.

In your analogy, if a person agrees that the erosion will happen anyway regardless of human activity, it makes sense for them to take some steps to mitigate the harm of erosion. This analogy doesn't describe the climate change debate accurately because:

  • What about carbon taxes and similar laws aimed at reducing the human contribution to climate change? This is actually the bulk of policy, rather than measure that work regardless of whether it's human caused. In your analogy, it would be the specialist saying "you must stop doing X because X causes erosion". Obviously the person would disagree if they don't believe erosion is caused by anything humans do, including X.
  • Even though you agree that something should be done, you may think that a particular solution is ineffective. In your analogy, if the specialist offers to sell the person a bottle of special snake oil, which they can pour on their land and prevent the erosion, why would the person agree? The specialist must convince the person that their solution is effective. This is easy if your argument can be "well it happened because we did X, so just stop doing X, problem solved" but if you can't use that argument if you can't convince the person that doing X caused it in the first place.
  • Generally, the person could refuse to listen to any specialist because they don't believe any solution is possible. In your analogy, if the person believes that there is nothing that can be done against erosion, why would they bother even talking to the specialist? Again, it is easy to argue that "if we made it, we can unmake it" (which isn't even true, strictly speaking) but you can't argue that if you don't get to say we made it.

There's not really a lot being done about climate change that would work regardless of whether humans caused it. A lot of it rests on the assumption that humans both caused it and are capable of reversing their actions. That's one big complaint I see opponents bring up: They don't want to be tricked into doing solutions that won't work. They also don't want to be tricked into doing solutions to a problem that doesn't exist - many people who agree that climate change happens but isn't natural, don't believe that its consequences will be as severe as is claimed or that it won't reverse its course. Again, part of the argument for increasing severity is increasing human activity, which doesn't work if you don't accept that it's human caused.

We can agree if the earth were to retain heat to an extent that global temperatures slightly rise by a couple or so degrees, it would be harmful to us (whatever the cause of that rise).

Actually a lot of people (commentators, not scientists) don't agree. Not only in principle, but also about how much the increase would be and whether it would be very harmful or just a little.

We can also agree that as a species, we have the ability to cause an increase or decrease to that retention of heat by our industrial and technical activities.

Obviously, we can't agree if some people think it's not caused by human activity.

So the question surely is whether there is good evidence it's a risk, how big the risk is, and whether the projected impact is likely and sufficient to undertake measures to offset it by reducing the earth's heat retention.

Also whether the measures are effective, and whether an effective measure is possible.

Rayce1950

Posted 2017-11-02T14:42:35.180

Reputation: 883

1

Why it is a red herring

I would say, those who don't care about what's causing it, who see the argument of 'are humans causing it' as a red herring, are focused on solutions, and how to fix it. They're focused more on things like... artificial trees, enormous air purifiers, or any method for making the world greener (solar power, electric cars, etc.)

Why it is NOT a red herring

Those who don't see it as a red herring, want to identify the bigger 'problem-child's' of what causes climate change, so we can focus our resources on fixing those issues, either by improving technology, or through regulations (carbon taxes, not allowing deforestation, eating less meat).

Summary

Those who view it as a red herring want to create new technology, don't want some major shift in how we live our daily lives, and want to find a way to remove co2 from the air.

Those who don't view it as a red herring want a drastic change in our lifestyles, and want to decrease the amount of co2 we pump into the air.

While both of these solutions are necessary to combat climate change, solutions (pulling co2 from the air) is the only thing that will reverse climate change. Drastic changes will only slow it's progression... which is why i believe it's a red herring, we need solutions that reverse it, not slow it.

Justin Beagley

Posted 2017-11-02T14:42:35.180

Reputation: 1 242

1Hmm. I'm not asking "what we need to do", or even if it's true or not, nor about other views held by those who have some view on it. I'm asking why the debate is so often framed around a point that it would appear cannot possibly be relevant, rather than those that might be. – Stilez – 2017-11-02T17:37:12.983

Right - which is why i explained why people view that argument (who is causing it) as relevant. They believe if we find the root problem (humans), then we can build solutions around that problem. Sorry, i insinuated from your question how you felt about the situation. – Justin Beagley – 2017-11-02T17:43:32.390

1@JustinBeagley just as an aside, you cannot insinuate from something, you can insinuate something yourself, but not FROM something. I think the word you were looking for is "infer". "I inferred from your question". You could use insinuated if you flip the sentence "I thought your question insinuated", but that's a little clunky imo. – None – 2017-11-02T18:44:13.067

It's not an on-off switch. The same mechanisms that would slow it are vital in reversing it, since there are natural mechanisms for removing CO2 that are being inhibited or overwhelmed by human activity. I don't see the dichotomy that you do. Interesting and thought-provoking take on it, in any case. – PoloHoleSet – 2017-11-02T21:32:07.890

@PoloHoleSet no i agree with both. (changing lifestyles, creating things that reverse the co2 levels)... i don't think those people are mutually exclusive - just saying that those who see a herring, and those who don't - this is (probably) how they view solving the problem. – Justin Beagley – 2017-11-03T00:21:02.573

There are also those of us who do care if it's a red herring or not but have given up on debating it and just want to remove the effects; making people stop polluting seems to be harder than herding cats -- removing the pollution seems like a more viable solution. – Clearer – 2017-11-03T09:53:57.230

-2

One primary reason is: the debate has become politicized, and has devolved into an 'us versus them' thing. The left believes it, the right does not. Each sees only what they want to see. Each seems determined to ram their belief down the other's throats. The right ignores scientific study, the left ignores the historical perspective that contradicts attributing every negative weather change to human causes - drastic climate changes and bad storms have happened in pre-industrial times.

It's a lot easier to feel ire towards people you don't like, rather than focus on the benefits to everyone, regardless of their political persuasion.

The sad part is - there are several valid benefits from reducing the consumption of fossil fuels, that have nothing to do with climate change. These benefits would be relevant to both sides.

One could frame the debate in the advantages of using less fossil fuel, which range from lower costs to people (an all electric car has operating costs about 1/4 that of a gasoline vehicle), to balance of payments (less capital flowing out of the country, especially relevant to countries who import most of their oil), to terrorism (not funding it, and western influence leaving the ME, which is the basis of most ME terrorist organizations) to conflict in general (most of the major conflicts in the last 30 years have involved ME oil), to finite supply (when we run out, we'll be facing a global economic meltdown).

For example, an all electric car with a 500 mile range, selling for $20k, would be a best seller. We're fairly close that right now. If 1/4 of the cars on the road in the US were all electric, we'd pay less to drive plus a whole lot less on repairs. And, we could kiss ME oil goodbye, and all the headaches and terrorism and armed conflicts that come with that. We could walk away and leave them to their eternal squabbles. And, we'd be cutting CO2 emissions in the process. Who would be opposed to that goal, which is very achievable?

Instead of this practical approach that focuses on the benefits to everyone, the argument is framed as 'my idea versus your idea', sort of like a Catholic vs Protestant debate, one that will never be resolved to the satisfaction of both. Since neither side holds a clear majority, neither side will prevail. But, both will bask in the warm glow of self satisfaction, knowing that they defended their ideology, while we crank out more CO2, and fight more wars and buy more gasoline.

We've become a hateful society. Addressing the issue of excessive consumption of fossil fuel is one of many problems that have fallen victim of this need to self justify and hate, rather than solve a problem that affects everyone.

tj1000

Posted 2017-11-02T14:42:35.180

Reputation: 9 859

1This reads more like a rant than an answer. – Philipp – 2017-11-09T19:08:22.497

This feels a bit like you're trying to say both sides are to blame, but then point out a lot of suggestions that only one side routinely makes. – None – 2017-11-09T23:33:16.457

-4

Because instead of dealing with complicated scientific issues, we prefer to deal with simple morality based story.

Yes, of course we can discus a more nuanced issue, concerning:

  • priorities for wellbeing of mankind (like Copenhagen Consensus) and wonder whether reducing carbon dioxide emission shouldn't be downgraded towards medium priority goals
  • what is our ability to coordinate international action (the EU is successful in reducing emission as long as one do not count increase of consumption of Chinese goods in the EU, yes we proudly outsourced this dirty job...)
  • long cost/benefit analysis, which not only include loss of arable land but rather shifting it further towards pools (in my country, unless there is an awful change in sea currents, one could actually expect longer vegetation season)
  • ability of absorbing moderate damage in future (+3C, 50cm higher sea level and possibly a bit more cases of extreme weather in a century? Does not sound as sudden doomsday, unless someone decided to build in a flood zone)

But such discussion would be boring. It would involve too many scientific papers, calculations, models and huge of assumptions (like technological advancement).

Thus the solution is simple. Because we abandon traditional religions, we need something new. We need to be told that we sinned by carbon dioxide emission thus we can only repent and save ourselves by serious emission reduction or we would all be doomed. (such version is able to claim being scientific, even while contradicting rather moderate warming estimates based on IPCC consensus)

Of course such narrative could be only countered with other, equally simple story. That is that everything is fully natural. In desperation one can use data about prior climate shifts. (which maybe a bit tricky when one try to use old climate cycles among young Earth creationist). Additionally, trying to slow down climate change would require high level of international cooperation. If only solution would require such taboo thing, then the easiest thing is to assume that the problem simply do not exist.

Shadow1024

Posted 2017-11-02T14:42:35.180

Reputation: 5 094