The Flipping Point (global warming conversion of skeptic Michael Shermer)

Scientific American ^ | June 2006 | Michael Shermer

[cogitator]

The Flipping Point

How the evidence for anthropogenic global warming has converged to cause this environmental skeptic to make a cognitive flip

By Michael Shermer

In 2001 Cambridge University Press published Bjørn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist, which I thought was a perfect debate topic for the Skeptics Society public lecture series at the California Institute of Technology. The problem was that all the top environmental organizations refused to participate. "There is no debate," one spokesperson told me. "We don't want to dignify that book," another said. One leading environmentalist warned me that my reputation would be irreparably harmed if I went through with it. So of course I did.

My experience is symptomatic of deep problems that have long plagued the environmental movement. Activists who vandalize Hummer dealerships and destroy logging equipment are criminal ecoterrorists. Environmental groups who cry doom and gloom to keep donations flowing only hurt their credibility. As an undergraduate in the 1970s, I learned (and believed) that by the 1990s overpopulation would lead to worldwide starvation and the exhaustion of key minerals, metals and oil, predictions that failed utterly. Politics polluted the science and made me an environmental skeptic.

Nevertheless, data trump politics, and a convergence of evidence from numerous sources has led me to make a cognitive switch on the subject of anthropogenic global warming. My attention was piqued on February 8 when 86 leading evangelical Christians--the last cohort I expected to get on the environmental bandwagon--issued the Evangelical Climate Initiative calling for "national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions" in carbon emissions.

Then I attended the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference in Monterey, Calif., where former vice president Al Gore delivered the single finest summation of the evidence for global warming I have ever heard, based on the recent documentary film about his work in this area, An Inconvenient Truth. The striking before-and-after photographs showing the disappearance of glaciers around the world shocked me out of my doubting stance.

Four books eventually brought me to the flipping point. Archaeologist Brian Fagan's The Long Summer (Basic, 2004) explicates how civilization is the gift of a temporary period of mild climate. Geographer Jared Diamond's Collapse (Penguin Group, 2005) demonstrates how natural and human-caused environmental catastrophes led to the collapse of civilizations. Journalist Elizabeth Kolbert's Field Notes from a Catastrophe (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2006) is a page-turning account of her journeys around the world with environmental scientists who are documenting species extinction and climate change unmistakably linked to human action. And biologist Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2006) reveals how he went from being a skeptical environmentalist to a believing activist as incontrovertible data linking the increase of carbon dioxide to global warming accumulated in the past decade.

It is a matter of the Goldilocks phenomenon. In the last ice age, CO2 levels were 180 parts per million (ppm)--too cold. Between the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution, levels rose to 280 ppm--just right. Today levels are at 380 ppm and are projected to reach 450 to 550 by the end of the century--too warm. Like a kettle of water that transforms from liquid to steam when it changes from 99 to 100 degrees Celsius, the environment itself is about to make a CO2-driven flip.

According to Flannery, even if we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 70 percent by 2050, average global temperatures will increase between two and nine degrees by 2100. This rise could lead to the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the March 24 issue of Science reports is already shrinking at a rate of 224 ±41 cubic kilometers a year, double the rate measured in 1996 (Los Angeles uses one cubic kilometer of water a year). If it and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melt, sea levels will rise five to 10 meters, displacing half a billion inhabitants.

Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable. No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism.

[Paradox]

Let's do nothing drastic; though we may well be in a position to lead in a sensible and workable program to conserve all resources, we still have an obligation to maintain the standard of living we have attained in order to help those still battling ancient diseases, deprivations and despotic rulers whose own needs are met regardless of the hardships they place on those they rule.

I believe we can do BOTH. When I say drastic, I mean, we can start a big Pro-Nuke program, and, say, a bio-fuels program. I know the Luddites want us to go back to the 6th century, but I dont think it is neccessary. The problem with Global Warming is that it has been co-opted by the socialist/communist/luddites. And thats a damn shame, because there are conservative alternatives to what alot of them prescribe.

Isn't it time we, our side, took a cautious, yet pro-active stance on GW? Just because "THEY" believe in it, doesn't make it false. Thats part of the stupidity of politics, I don't want any part of that. If I want to see that kind of thinking, I'll go read the DUmmie Funnies..

[Question_Assumptions]

Some environmentalist are reasonable. Many are not.

[Old Professer]

I maintain that it is instrument influence; nowhere are the true temperature shelters statistically separated from the more common popular digital sensors displayed and arrayed willy-nilly on rooftops, power poles, towers and the like.

If we want to spend some bucks, let's set up an array of sheltered instruments and calibrate them on schedule; take readings on a continuous basis and smooth the results over a five year period.

[Question_Assumptions]

No ice at the poles was the norm for most of Earth's history. Of course some paleoclimatologists also suggest that for at least one period, the ice ran to, or very close to, the equator. If climate is such a slippery slope that is so impossible to recover from, they why isn't the Earth like Venus or Europa already?

[Old Professer]

Political pressure was exerted to make drastic changes in lifestyle, thought and social action based on those wrong-headed notions exactly as we see being done today and if we don't give time its place in this debate we will never know what we caused or avoided.

[Old Professer]

You are welcome on my team any day; we'll make cogitator the waterboy. :)

[Steely Tom]

That's a pretty damn good point.

I sure thought so. Nice of you to notice, Tex. ;)

[cogitator]

Bump for later napalming.

Bring it on. (You might want to read what has gone before.)

[Old Professer]

Cute; and the EPA is on full assualt on all forms of released sulfur oxides.

Once again, the urge to do good trumps the logic of the correction.

[Old Professer]

Nothing can be 150X less than anything; it is impossible to measure the total CO2 released from all forms of combustion whether human induced or natural.

While it may be possible to measure an eruption an analyze the gasses it remains non-quantifiable to assess all emissions caused by man.

[Right Wing Professor]

Oh, climate is probably not highly unstable. But increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere undoubtedly causes the climate to warm; and back before C4 photosynthesis evolved, we undoubtedly had much higher atmospheric CO2 and a warmer climate.

I was a skeptic like Shermer; I'm, now convinced the climate is warming anthropogenically. I'm not convinced it's overall a bad thing, and I'm highly skeptical of scenarios that involve melting icesheets or massive positive feedback loops. Still, for a whole lot of reasons, climate change being just one, it would be better to graduaally shift to nuclear/biofuels.

As the good Doctor Stochastic said earlier, the problem is the right doesn't believe the science at all, and the left believes any and all envirolunacy that calls itself science, as long as its extreme.

[JustDoItAlways]

Where did all that oil and gas and coal come from in the first place.

Answer: Plants and algae and geological processes sucked it out of the atmosphere and buried it. In the early Earth, the CO2 ppm was 800,000 versus today's 380.

Plants and algae got so good at this process that by 6 to 8 million years ago, they had absorbed out just about as much C02 as possible, down to 500 ppm.

The Earth started to dry out after this period. Jungles and temperate rainforests receded in favor of grasslands, savanna and deserts.

By 3.0 million years ago, regular glaciation cycles started to overtake Europe, Asia, North America and mountaineous regions.

Greenland and Antarctica stayed glaciated just as they had been for 15 million years in the case of Greenland (when it was much warmer and wetter and C02 concentrations were much higher by the way - ie Greenland is not going to melt) and for 35 million years in the case of Antarctica (CO2 ppm was 3000 when Antarctica started freezing over - ie. there is no way Antarctica is going to melt either.)

So in the past, when C02 was higher, what did we have, say 10 million years ago?

Lush Rainforests, rapid plant growth, no deserts, comfortable living for the animal family which dominated the planet at the time, the Apes (our family). At that time, there were over 50 different species of Apes on the planet, the dominate family of animals, while today there are only 4.

It seems to me that we were built for higher CO2 concentrations. We certainly were not built for the 180 ppm of CO2 that resulted in the last 4 ice ages. We are a naked Ape for example.

It is actually quite pleasant in a greenhouse and plants seem to grow really well in them too - the climate scientists are so wrapped up in their own little panic that they cannot see the forest for the ice in the way.

[HamiltonJay]

I am all for better environmental policies, however where we disagree is what we consider important environmental issues.

I for one don't see global warming as a human caused issue, I don't see it. CO2 is Plant Food.. more CO2 = more plants.. more plants = more food = more energy.

It is theory that CO2 helps retain heat that reaches the earth... Water Vapor in the upper atmosphere is also a huge factor in reflecting and retaining heat, and its easily observable... Clouds over the ground moderate temps... unclouded deserts heat up in the day and cool immensely at night.

I am all for reducing immissions in the general sense, just from a general health perspective... However to use fear mongering that we are going to destroy our planet? Please, that just doesn't fly.

Lets take the worst case scenario, the eart is in a warming trend, and its going to continue and global average temps will raise 1-2 degrees celcius. What does this really mean?

More fresh water will be available and not trapped in solid form... (not a bad thing).... milder winters and warmer summers... not exactly tragic. Latitudes closer to the equator will be warmer, but so too will latitudes closer to the poles allowing for larger areas of farming and argriculture... (in spite of all thsi global warming propoganda, there are still to this day parts of Canada that 40 years ago were farmable that are now tundra) Oceans rise a few inches...

More of the earths surface will be available for habitation, not only by humans but by other animals as well... please tell me how this is a bad thing? And that's assuming EVERYTHING they are claiming will happen will happen?

Will the eathe become unlivable? No.

Will our fresh water become poluted or run out? No.

Will the Water Cycle stop working? No.

Will agriculture cease to exist? No.

I am all for finding better alternatives to what we do now for energy.... but to lie and fearmonger to try to motivate it is nuts... to allow people to fearmonger to promote political not practical ends is rediculous.

The earth is a dynamic living system, it will adjust to anything we petty and pathetic humans could throw at it... Its the height of arrogance to think we are going to kill this planet. This planet will die, when the sun, running out of fuel begins to expand and burns the atmosphere off of it.. and not a minute before.


We burn more fossil fuels today thanks to enviroweenies that to sit back and then bitch about it is rediculous. We should be a primarily nuclear powered nation.. we aren't and not only are we not, we are burning home heating fuel to power electrical plants stupidy sucking more money out of the system just to appease folks for no practicle reason.

MTBE another mandated disaster by envirowackos has contaminated water supplies and will remain that way through our grandchildrens time!

The enviro movement is cluttered with disasters... Millions of people on this planet die every year because of lies and fearmongering over DDT.. and they claim that one as a "victory"....

Millions of acres of forests burned and people died because "envirowackos" decided controlled burns were bad for the environment...

etc etc etc...

Enviro activists that are honest to the cause are few and far between, outnumbered by loud mouth liars who don't give a damn about the environment or mans place in it.. just want to look at cute little animals... and ruining everything they touch with "good intentions"

[Old Professer]

In the two years directly after WWII more of the previously rationed goods were consumed than the entire period of the war - pent-up demand is a part of capitalism, to deny it is to invite socialism.

[freepatriot32]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

updated List of Ping lists vol.III(Get Your Fresh Hot Pings Here!)

[Old Professer]

About three months ago my neighbor used up what was left of a gallon of old paint in his garage and put a thin coat on the deck the previous owner had installed.

Last month he put the house up for sale.

Today, after the rain, I noticed that almost all of the white paint had washed away in the meantime.

[jonrick46]

"That way, instead of moving half a billion people, we can just starve them to death!"

These envirototalitarians want population control and any devious way to cause negative population growth is encouraged. In their world, if they could grow more alligators to eat people, that would be a good thing. Initiating ecology policies that cause world starvation through the collapse of the U.S. economy would be a good start. Would you expect anything less from the Culture of Death?

[Old Professer]

Fine, let's all go out and gather a bucket of air and hide it in the closet.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Global temperatures were much higher during the Cretaceous. The poles were forested, for heaven's sake."

No, they were NOT. The "5-7 degree" difference you are talking about was anything BUT catastrophic for life. Note that that relatively SMALL temperature difference occurred when the CO2 level was THREE TIMES HIGHER than the MAXIMUM talked about in the article.

The point is that all the "Global Warmers" assume that a SMALL amount of warming will translate into some kind of "unknowable climate flip/catastrophe". The historic record doesn't support anything like that.

[redgolum]

My father has an old tape of a talk by a Dr. Browning that said much the same thing. Many civilizations rise and fall do to climate. What is interesting is what he said in the next section. Those climate changes don't have alot to do with anything man does. One good volcano (not a big one, but an "average size" one) puts up more particulate matter into the air quicker than we could if we ground up all of our trash and dumped it into the stratosphere.

I also saw this when I was working in New Mexico. At the time of the Spanish settlement of the area, it was a pretty good place to grow corn and other crops. Good rain fall, mild winters, etc. Guess what, a lot of the local tribes had moved into that area because their home ground was in a severe decades long drought. In short, the Southwest was a good place to grow crops (in the 1600's) and the upper Midwest was dang near a desert. And then the climate changed. All this was well before there were enough people to have much of an effect (Europe was recovering from the Plague).