Yesterday I read an online article stating that Texas Governor Rick Perry, who recently added his name to those seeking the Republican Presidential nomination, had expressed doubts about Global Warming. The article, by Dina Cappiello, went on to say, “But Perry's opinion runs counter to the view held by an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet.”
Like many controversial issues, Global Warming is complicated by the fact that there are thoughtful, rational, intelligent people, looking at the same data, who end up on both sides of the issue. The fact that many, especially on one side of the issue, try to insist that “the debate is over” makes me lean toward the opposite side of the issue.
The “issue” of Global Warming actually involves at least four separate-but-related questions:
1) Is global warming occurring?
2) Is global warming a bad thing?
3) Do the activities of humans have a significant effect on global warming?
4) IF global warming is occurring, AND if it is a bad thing, is there anything humans can do to significantly change the situation?
The answers to each of these questions have a dramatic impact on the other questions. However, I do not believe ANY of these four questions have been adequately answered. Number two is the least scientific of the four questions, and therefore is the hardest to answer objectively. I accept the idea that significant global warming would cause a rise in ocean levels, which would in turn lead to flooding of coastal areas -- and since these coastal areas are often densely populated by humans, perhaps this can be labeled a “bad thing” since cities would be lost and people would be driven from their homes. However, if this loss of homes were offset by, for instance, an increase in the world’s food supply, or even an increase in the amount of habitable land on earth (as regions like Siberia and Greenland became more temperate), then perhaps global warming would not be a clear-cut “bad thing”.
Global warming has become highly politicized, which interferes with finding honest, objective answers to the various questions. It has been established that on at least one occasion proponents of one side of the issue deliberately falsified data to support their position. I would not be surprised to learn that proponents of both sides had done this, and probably more than once. We SHOULD attempt to answer factual issues factually -- though the “facts” of global warming are complicated by various factors, including the slow time scale of global climate trends.
When a scientific issue become so politicized that it interferes with the scientific study of the issue, we should all be ashamed.
Truth is complicated.