Editor's denial of climate change is 'paranoid'

In two of his recent “2 Cents” columns, the Inter Lake’s editor displays the symptoms of paranoid denial about climate change. He asserts that progressives are using it as a “steppingstone to complete social transformation” and a lever to “muscle us toward more and bigger government.” What paranoid nonsense!

He refers to climate change as an “agenda” as if it were nothing but an ideologically driven issue and not a real and serious environmental problem that needs to be addressed. He treats it as a subject of ridicule, and misrepresents and ignores well-documented scientific facts about climate change that are at odds with his denial of the truth.

The editor views as threatening any scientific finding that has regulatory implications because it  conflicts with his wish for a laissez-faire economy free of any environmental regulations. He is ideologically blind to facts and refuses to accept the irrefutable scientific consensus on climate change that has come from the independent convergence of almost all climate experts on the same evidence-based findings and conclusions arrived at by the application of accepted scientific methods, tests of the reliability and consistency of multiple, independent lines of scientific evidence, and accepted performance standards, including the fact that the science has held up over time.

While more is to be learned about the consequences of future changes in climate, the fact is that the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses about the ongoing changes in climate and its cause have been thoroughly examined and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

The realities, which the editor continues to deny, are that the earth’s climate is changing (Yes, it’s getting warmer) due primarily to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels; additional global warming and other changes in climate due to human activities are inevitable and could be substantial this century and beyond, posing major risks to natural and human systems unless greenhouse gas emissions are substantially reduced; and the sooner that serious efforts to reduce these emissions proceed, the lower the risk posed by climate change and the less pressure there will be to make larger, more rapid, and potentially more expensive reductions later.

The irrefutable conclusion society must face is that humans simply cannot burn all of the remaining fossil fuel reserves without handing current and future generations a situation that is out of their control, with enormous consequences for their well-being and for the very existence of many of the other species on this planet. Given this reality, it is irresponsible to be making major new investments in equipment and infrastructure, including the Keystone XL pipeline, new fossil fuel-fired power plants, and expanded coal mining, that will, in effect, “lock in” commitments to both more greenhouse gas emissions for many decades to come and even greater, unavoidable changes in climate for centuries to millennia in the future. It is also unrealistic to expect that serious efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change will ever come from voluntary reductions in emissions alone, but instead will require government-imposed regulations.

If the editor is waiting for science to resolve or constrain all scientific uncertainties about climate change before he is willing to accept the consensus of experts, he is expecting the impossible because science can never resolve all scientific uncertainties about any subject, including climate change. Scientific uncertainty does not mean we are completely clueless about every detail regarding past, current, and future changes in climate and the risks posed by such changes. The fact is that uncertainty exists in all areas of science, and virtually all public policy decisions are made in the face of some uncertainty. Expecting science to resolve or constrain all uncertainties before making decisions to deal with the risks posed by human-caused climate change is tantamount to saying that no decisions can ever be made. Insisting on the impossible is a complete abdication of the moral and ethical responsibilities humans have to protect this planet by preventing dangerous human-caused changes in climate.

The editor interprets as proof that the science of climate change is mistaken by, for example, claiming that global average surface temperatures since 2001 have been stable despite the continued increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. What he ignores, however, is that the last decade was the warmest on record despite the several years of relatively cooler global temperatures due to normal, short-term climate variability caused by the well-documented effects of El Nino and La Nina. Two of the three warmest years of record occurred within the past decade which included record-breaking heat that is certainly neither normal nor stable.

Furthermore, measures of global climate change are about more than surface air temperatures. The heat content of the entire planet, including the oceans and land (and melting glaciers and sea ice) has continued to increase throughout the last 50 years, a fact that, not surprisingly, the editor chooses to ignore because it conflicts with his ideological denial of human-caused global warming.

The editor also wrongly asserts that humans can’t regulate climate. Apparently he believes that the fate of humanity and the planet on which we live is beyond human control and that the only way of determining what is best for society is through small government and an unregulated free market — a notion that may not appear unsound, save for the fact that the free market doesn’t ever account for environmental costs unless it is regulated to do so. Such reasoning automatically hamstrings the accountability humans have as a species to manage our destiny by protecting the planet on which we all depend.

The editor attempts to dismiss the consensus on human-caused global warming by citing a 1941 prediction by a theoretical physicist that our planet is in a warming period due to a natural, long-term climate cycle. Here again, however, he ignores inconvenient facts that conflict with his argument. The cause of the predicted natural warming period he cites, namely a long-term increase in the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth due to variation in the shape and plane of the Earth’s orbit around the sun, was not occurring at the time of the prediction or since. So, it can’t be the cause of the ongoing global warming that began many decades ago.

Apparently, the editor believes that ignoring and misrepresenting what is known about climate change and making it a subject of ridicule is simply a way of encouraging public debate, or increasing public consciousness about this subject. What should be ridiculed, however, is both his continued misrepresentation, denial and disregard of extensive, well-documented scientific evidence and his false claims that have absolutely no scientific basis.  

While he is entitled to his opinions about climate change, they should at least have a basis in fact. Unfortunately, his do not. If he supposes that his way will enable readers to arrive at an informed conclusion about climate change, he is misguided at best and irresponsible at worst. It is regrettable that the editor is so ideologically paranoid about the truth that he is unable to confront the scientific realities of human-caused climate change and the risks it poses.

Jerry W. Elwood, of Kalispell, is the retired director of the Climate Change Research Division in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science.