We’re in an age now where we want to cut to the chase and get to the facts. We don’t want the whole story; we want the Reader’s Digest version. We even want it with the most complex issues of our time, including climate change.
Extreme Weather and Climate Change
You’ve undoubtedly have read this talking point, but it bears mentioning again. Weather is what you see outside your window. Climate is the prevailing weather conditions for an area. They are not synonymous, though you won’t get that idea from popular media.
Instead, every single snowstorm, tornado, hurricane, and heavy rainfall is attributed to climate change. Both weather and climate are complex phenomenon. To pigeonhole a single event to anthropogenic climate change is too simplistic. Other things contribute to both, like oceans, volcanoes among other things.
What Science Says
Even science acknowledges this fact. The abstract from a 2013 paper from the Bulletin of American Meteorological Society states:
“Approximately half the analyses found some evidence that anthropogenically caused climate change was a contributing factor to the extreme event examined, though the effects of natural fluctuations of weather and climate on the evolution of many of the extreme events played key roles as well.”
The quote refers to 19 analyses of extreme weather events in 2012. As you can see, there is some disagreement with half finding some evidence and the half, not. And notice as well that the the paper references some evidence, not definitive. It also acknowledges other facts, including natural fluctuations.
I bring this up not to split hairs, but as a plea for truth in reporting. The real story is not being told. Instead, we have the snark as evidence by this headline from Bloomberg Businessweek: “It’s Global Warming, Stupid,” in a reference to Superstorm Sandy. I hate to break it you. You didn’t build that storm.
Let’s consider the science. Climate scientists work with past data and modeling. They can’t create an experiment in the traditional way as in a double-blind, randomized controlled setting. As such, they can find correlations but not causation.
Second, in a twist on the chicken-and-the-egg storm, global warming brings about climate change. The unfortunate coining of the former term has fueled many skeptic arguments, sometimes with the ridiculous use of snowballs.
Third, let’s us not forget the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. (The phrase is Latin for “after this, therefore because of this.”) The argument goes like this: Climate change is happening. We had a huge storm, therefore it must be climate change.
This fallacy often shares the limelight with the appeal to ignorance or argumentum ad ignorantiam. In this case, the argument states that it must be climate change because you didn’t prove that it’s not. The fallacies show us what is wrong with this whole argument.
How About a Solution?
As I wrote last time, the thing missing in this whole dialogue about climate change is rational communication. That means no snark, no Weather Channel euphemisms for any weather event, and no political ideologies confusing the issue. A grasp of science and statistics would help too.
Yes, I accept that climate change is occurring. Yes, there will be consequences. No, I don’t equate it to social issues or politicizing. I want the same things as you want: clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment. Can we all agree on that?