By David Gushee
The New York Times ran a front-page article by Justin Gillis this past Sunday called “In Weather Chaos, a Case for Global Warming.” It makes for an interesting study, both because the Times finally ran an article like this and because of how carefully the writer/editor framed its scientific claims. The facts demand attention, but the climate-change-denial industry has everyone running scared.
The article begins by reporting that recent months have seen a number of extremely severe weather events. These have included floods in New England, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and now an especially disastrous situation in Pakistan. Heat waves have struck the eastern United States, parts of Africa, eastern Asia, and Russia. Russia has seen its highest summer temperatures in recorded history, leading to wildfires that have burned 1.9 million acres, with thousands of lives lost and disastrous impacts on the Russian wheat crop.
Looking at broader and more subtle trends, the article cites a government report (2008) that claims, “in recent decades, most of North America has been experiencing more unusually hot days and nights, fewer unusually cold days and nights, and fewer frost days. Heavy downpours have become more frequent and intense.” The ratio of record-high-temperature days to record lows in the United States has shifted since the 1950s from 1 low day to 1.09 high days to 1 low to 2.04 high days. That means that more than two high-temperature records were set for every low-temperature record over the past decade.
In the article, Jay Lawrimore of the National Climatic Data Center was willing to say unequivocally that “the climate is changing. Extreme events are occurring with greater frequency, and in many cases with greater intensity.” Gavin Schmidt, a climate researcher for NASA, is quoted as saying, “If you ask me as a person, do I think the Russian heat wave has to do with climate change, the answer is yes. If you ask me as a scientist whether I have proved it, the answer is no — at least not yet.” One wonders whether Schmidt’s caution is related to the relentless pounding that his colleague James Hansen has experienced for his outspoken posture on climate change.
The Russians themselves, previously slow to accept climate change, appear to have been deeply affected by their terrible experiences this summer and are beginning to believe their eyes rather than the climate deniers. President Dmitri Medvedev is quoted as saying, “What is happening now in our central regions is evidence of this global climate change, because we have never in our history faced such weather conditions in the past.”
The cautious tone of the article reflects the negative effect that climate-change deniers have had on the public discussion of this issue. Eric Pooley’s new book, The Climate War, goes behind the scenes to understand what happened — how a global-warming debate that had finally begun to shift from the credibility of the science to the best policy response has moved backward over the last two or three years. This has meant both that the United States has not made significant progress to address climate issues and that international efforts to address climate have been sidetracked.
Pooley notes that there is a valuable professional skepticism built into the scientific method. For the honest scientist, all scientific claims must be tested and retested using the best available methods of exploration, and the data must be followed where it leads. I would add that there is an appealing kind of purity about good scientific research, because at its best it is intended to find truth and to serve humankind. The scientific method was born early enough in Western history that it still carries within it the hopeful belief that such a thing as truth exists — and that humanity will be wise enough to use the findings of science for human well-being.
Sadly, the evolving, contested and cautious nature of good science can make it a pushover for those who would abuse its uncertainties for political or economic purposes. Pooley’s book takes us inside the industry of professional climate-change deniers — the anti-tax, anti-regulatory, pro-petroleum, pro-coal, pro-power-industry interest groups; the faux “scientists” and occasional real scientists who front for them; the cranks, true believers, and ideologues who are attracted to them; the communications specialists who shill for them; the blogosphere that serves as their echo chamber; the politicians who vote on their behalf; and the media outlets who feature them.
This apparatus of resistance to climate science and climate policy has been winning for the last three years, gaining ground in public opinion and slowing policy response. Pooley calls it the “Denialosphere,” and its successes can lead one to despair that humanity has what it takes to face facts and change course.
It’s a good thing that for Christians our hope is not ultimately in humanity, but in God.