 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Are Political Commentators Qualified to Discuss Global Warming?Bill O'Reilly's Commentary (December 12, 2009 in The Tribune) on global warming was more balanced than many of his columns, but it still contained some troubling points to which I would like to respond. He begins by referring to the "global warming industry." My recollection is that renewable energy industries have been around for several decades in some cases, and are not solely a response to concerns about global warming. The study of global warming is not properly an industry in and of itself, but is a branch of the larger study of weather and climate on Earth. Mr. O'Reilly says that humans cannot know for sure if the planet is in danger from warming. There is well-documented evidence of temperature trends over the last 10 years, 20 years, and longer, as well as a growing body of evidence on the shrinking of polar ice caps and alpine glaciers, altered timing of animal migration, altered distribution of plant communities, increased desertification, and other indicators of rising temperatures. Mr. O'Reilly quotes a hurricane forecaster, Dr. William Gray, stating that there is an "international climate warming conspiracy." In so saying, Mr. O'Reilly feeds the idea that global warming is a political conspiracy, and therefore open to political debate. This is not correct. Trends of global warming are fairly widely established by scientific measurement. Not all scientists are in complete agreement, but that is the way science works. The public should not expect 100% consensus when data are subject to the process of scientific analysis. There is also broad consensus that human activities are having an expanding effect on climate. Again, while consensus is not 100%, it is broad, and this is normal in the workings of science. The point is that Dr. Gray's opinion is a minority opinion in the scientific community, but Mr. O'Reilly takes it as if it somehow sweeps aside the preponderance of evidence. It does no such thing. I would further argue that political commentators do not have the credentials to argue about scientific observations. For myself, I am not a meteorologist, but have listened to enough qualified researchers in various fields related to this phenomenon to understand the basic mechanisms. If Mr. O'Reilly has done the same, then perhaps we should communicate directly with one another. It is good to see Bill O'Reilly acknowledge that the political right is wrong to reject global warming as a hoax, though other writers - often lacking in scientific qualifications and in specific data - have done this, including former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, whom he mentions. It is even more gratifying to see him state that the sane choice is to develop cleaner energy options. I agree completely, but my concern is that by aliging himself with those who view global warming as a "conspiracy," he hopes to convince us that we should simply let the "free marketplace" develop the solutions. I don't believe most markets are completely free, and in fact while some energy sources are heavily subsidized but others are not or are less so, this creates an uneven playing field. It will be to the advantage of many people to keep working on clean energy sources, while equalizing public and private supports for them, and to take concrete steps to slow down and reverse atmospheric effects our activities have already had. |
|---|
The Business of Our Towns
|
It's Our Nature |
Slo Coast Life |
Slo Coast Arts
|
|---|
