Sen. Pittenger's War on Science

In today's Charlotte Observer, Republican State Senator Robert Pittenger lends his efforts to his party's war on science by denying that human activity is a significant cause of global warming. As an example of its specious species, it's nothing special. But since Pittenger a member of the N.C. Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change (which I wrote about here), his wingnuttery actually has a public policy impact, so let's take a closer look at what he says.

Pittenger starts out by noting that there are natural warming and cooling cycles, and that human activity has very little additional impact.

A study by Jager and Barry from 1990 found that over the past 1 million years, there have been eight periods of glaciers and ice caps advancing and retreating — all of this occurring without automobile and power plant pollution from humans.

…While the Earth is currently warming, the real question that should be asked is, "Can we do anything about it?" The answer is very little, since this cycle was occurring prior to the first human civilizations.

This is nonsense. No one denies the existence of natural climate cycles, but the scientific consensus holds that human activity is the most significant factor in global warming. Indeed, Pittenger's punch line above about being able to do "very little" because there are natural factors at work begs the question of how important human activity is. He doesn't back up his assertion with scientific evidence because there isn't any that supports it.

Next, Pittenger bemoans the difficulty of climate science, and suggests that this complexity precludes us from making any reasonable predictions about the impacts of global warming.

While it is understood that human carbon emissions have a small effect on global climate, the computer models predicting global flooding and catastrophes rely on numerous variables that can greatly affect the long-term temperature change estimates, particularly particles, water vapor and clouds.

Particles, or aerosols, tend to have a cooling effect as solar energy is reflected back into space. Increased water vapor as a result of higher temperatures tends to enhance global warming if the lower atmosphere warms up, though satellite data has shown no such warming to date. Clouds can either cool or warm the climate depending on their composition and led the United Nations IPCC to state that "clouds represent a significant source of potential error in climate simulations."

Yes, climate models are not perfect, and no one seriously disputes that. But in the end the science here is stunningly clear: human-induced global warming will have dire consequences. To take an element of uncertainty acknowledged by the discipline and use that to undermine its overall validity is dishonest and not in keeping with the scientific method. Oh, and his claim about what the satellite data shows is completely false. In fact, the data actually lend quite a bit of support to contemporary climate models.

Pittenger concludes by claiming reducing carbon emissions would have a ruinous impact on our economy and hurt the world's poor.

These three variables combined make it extremely difficult to argue for significant carbon emission reductions, which will have enormous negative economic impact on developed and developing countries — all based on estimates for 100 years in the future.

The "negative impact" he mentions is asserted, never argued for, but I imagine he is thinking of the costs installing carbon dioxide scrubbers on smokestacks and the like. No doubt there would be costs associated with reducing emissions, but there are also costs to not acting, e.g. watching south Florida sink into the rising ocean. There are also the economic gains that the birth of a new environmental industry would generate, but Pittenger doesn't consider that side of the equation.

We must also consider the costs of diverting vital resources from important issues like feeding the world's poor and providing ample water supply to emerging countries, which is the most important factor to impact world health. Contrary to the wishful thinking of those who believe we can alter climate change, such an emphasis could adversely affect critical world issues. The billions and by some estimates even trillions that it would cost society to cut carbon emissions would have a minute effect on projected global climate change while diverting our resources from more important issues at hand.

How sad that the richest, most powerful nation on earth, which currently devotes a whopping 0.17% of its GDP on foreign aid, just can't afford to give any more. But seriously, foreign assistance is only a zero-sum game if our policy makers choose to make it one. In that case, the responsibility lies on those making that choice, and not those who are pushing the for more good to be done in the world.

In the end, reasonable people can agree on the scientific consensus and still disagree on what action needs to be taken — science doesn't overdetermine policy. But Pittenger doesn't get this. Instead of making his arguments based on the facts of the matter, he distorts the science, magnifies the uncertainties, and leaps to unsupported conclusions. Our future is not in good hands as long as people like Robert Pittenger are in charge.