… this time. Tom Friedman is a master of the memorable phrase. My problem with Tom is those smashing phrases sometime obscure a weak grasp of the subject. I agree with Roger Pielke Jr. that Tom does well in this op-ed putting his talent for the phrase on expressing what we know and what we don’t know about climate change.
But I do not want to celebrate the entire column, which is peppered with casual distortions. E.g., “Yes, the climate-denier community, funded by big oil, has published all sorts of bogus science for years”. It is clear from the context of the whole column that by denier he means anybody who doesn’t agree with Michael Mann on everything. So my preference is that you do not read Friedman’s column, but instead read Pielke’s post — which is much superior to the raw Friedman because he puts the climate science in exactly the right position with respect to energy policy (which is what actions we elect):
(…) What is this settled science? Thomas Friedman gets it absolutely correct in his NYT column today (emphasis added):
This is not complicated. We know that our planet is enveloped in a blanket of greenhouse gases that keep the Earth at a comfortable temperature. As we pump more carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse gases into that blanket from cars, buildings, agriculture, forests and industry, more heat gets trapped.
What we don’t know, because the climate system is so complex, is what other factors might over time compensate for that man-driven warming, or how rapidly temperatures might rise, melt more ice and raise sea levels. It’s all a game of odds. We’ve never been here before. We just know two things: one, the CO2 we put into the atmosphere stays there for many years, so it is “irreversible†in real-time (barring some feat of geo-engineering); and two, that CO2 buildup has the potential to unleash “catastrophic†warming.
When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible†and potentially “catastrophic,†I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.
Friedman is absolutely right about what we know and what we don’t know. Debates over action get wrapped up around debates what we know and what we don’t know, and these debates are unlikely to be settled any time soon, whether within the scientific community or among the broader public.
The fulcrum on which action rests to decarbonize economies and improve adaptation will not be science, but everything else. The more science is used as such a fulcrum — especially among activist scientists — the more potential damage to science itself.
(…)
Please read the whole thing for Roger’s conclusions. I have snipped several important bits, including the closing paragraphs favoring “no regrets” policy options.
Recent Comments