Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Richard C. J. Somerville* | Catherine Gautier*
As this is written, all four remaining
candidates in the race for the Republican presidential nomination
vehemently reject the fundamental findings of modern climate science.
These findings are simple to state:
The Earth's climate is now
unequivocally warming. Many chains of evidence demonstrate the warming,
including increasing atmospheric and ocean temperatures, rising sea
levels, shrinking glaciers and ice sheets, and changing precipitation
patterns. The main cause of the warming is human activities, especially
burning fossil fuels, which increases the amount of heat-trapping gases
in the atmosphere. The effects of man-made climate change are already
being felt, and they are mainly harmful. The consequences of climate
change will become much more severe in the future, unless global actions
are taken soon to drastically reduce the amount of heat-trapping gases
emitted into the atmosphere.
These conclusions are the results of
decades of research by the international scientific community. They have
been endorsed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and by
the National Academy of Sciences and leading scientific professional
societies in the US and other countries. The great majority of
mainstream climate scientists such as ourselves find these results
persuasive.
Nevertheless, Ted Cruz heaps scorn on what he has
called "a pseudo-scientific theory." He has dismissed it as, "not
science, it's a religion." John Kasich says, "I don't believe that
humans are the primary cause of climate change." Marco Rubio agrees,
stating, "I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic
changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it."
Donald Trump speaks of a "global warming hoax," calling it, "created by
and for the Chinese."
These public figures reject mainstream
climate science because they view it through a lens that incorporates
their firmly held values and convictions. They have a high regard for
American capitalism and private industry, or the free enterprise system,
and a low regard for taxes and regulation, which they regard as
government interference. In rejecting mainstream science, they are
expressing their opposition to policies that governments might
implement, if the science were accepted.
In the United States,
aspiring Republican politicians may also feel the pressure to conform to
a litmus test. In order to obtain political and financial support,
especially from sources allied with the fossil fuel industry, they may
conclude that they must attack mainstream climate science and insist
that man-made climate change is not a problem.
However, Mother
Nature, or the physical climate system, is not concerned with anybody's
values or convictions or political litmus tests. Mother Nature is
concerned with natural laws. Heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere do
trap heat. That leads to warming. After every politician has expressed
an opinion, Mother Nature bats last. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a
politician and sociologist, famously said, "Everyone is entitled to his
own opinion, but not to his own facts."
Yet the Republican
Presidential candidates have gone to a great deal of trouble to avoid
confronting the facts about climate change. They tirelessly repeat
climate myths, the refutations of which are easily found on websites
such as www.skepticalscience.com. These politicians like to say, "I am
not a scientist," a truth sadly obvious to any scientist. Yet they have
refused to learn what science has discovered about climate change. When
Republicans in Congress have held hearings on climate change, they
produce tired re-runs of political theater. The scientists invited to
testify often include the same handful of outlier witnesses whose
opinions are known to be compatible with Republican political positions.
Science is the best process
that humanity has developed to learn about natural laws. It is
self-correcting, based on facts and evidence, not on belief. Marcia
McNutt, the distinguished geophysicist who is the incoming president of
the US National Academy of Sciences, has said, "Science is a method for
deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws of
nature or not."
Most of the world now accepts that climate
science can provide useful input to policymaking. Some 196 countries
recently produced the Paris agreement. Stabilizing the climate and
preventing dangerous levels of climate disruption, the goal of this
agreement, will require vigorous international efforts and strong
American leadership. Only one major country today has an important
political party that overwhelmingly rejects climate science. That
country is the United States; the party is Republican.
Science
shows that the climate system responds to the cumulative emissions of
heat-trapping gases. Today's generation thus has its hands on the
thermostat controlling future climate. Failure to sharply reduce
emissions can lead to sea level rise that will literally change the map
of the world. Electing a president who, head in the sand, rejects modern
climate science would be risky and potentially disastrous. It would
needlessly increase the likelihood that future generations will be
condemned to cope with a severely disrupted climate.
*Catherine Gautier is a professor emerita at the University of
California, Santa Barbara. She has taught classes on climate, energy,
and water at both undergraduate and graduate levels.
*Richard Somerville is Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego.
Links
No comments :
Post a Comment