Dear Mytheos:
You are correct. No one has proven that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, or that it will occur. The science behind it is not completely exact and can never be scientifically proven. Just as debate continues to rage in this country about whether evolution really happens or whether God steers our generational genetics in a certain direction, there is a sizeable faction of people—though few are scientists and most have special interests to promote—who purport that the notion of climate change is, in fact, a hoax.
While you may give full credit to a favorite target, Al Gore, for eliciting a significant degree of alarmism throughout the United States and beyond, you need to consider the science before you attack the politics. You claim that the “scientific consensus” on global climate change is “illusory,” citing Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan, and Roy Spencer as members of the scientific community who do not deny that climate change is happening, but doubt that its due to human causes. But what of the climate scientists who have expressed grave concern about the contribution of greenhouse gases to the warming of the earth, namely, nearly everyone else?
In fact, the word ’consensus’ denotes a “general or widespread agreement among all the members of a group.” Yes, Mytheos, though a few climate scientists still doubt the anthropogenic causes of climate change, there is indeed a consensus. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) cannot simply be written off because Mr. Sloan has criticized it. I can disagree with the theory of gravity, but as long as every reputable physicist believes it, we as a society cannot discount it on my word alone, or even on the word of a few others. Back in the days when the sun revolved around the earth, we didn’t quite have the scientific knowledge or technology to be able to determine otherwise. We’ve come a long way since then.
When an overwhelmingly vast majority of the scientific community tells you that you have a big problem on your hands, you don’t look to the minority of individuals who think otherwise, hoping to God that it’s not true. And the percentage of those who believe that humans do, in fact, cause climate change has been steadily increasing as more research has been done. If Dick Cheney’s “One Percent Doctrine” can apply to terrorist threats, why can’t a similar, yet not-so-similar, “Ninety Percent Doctrine” apply to a problem that could ultimately lead to the demise of a whole lot more people?
You say that it should not be our responsibility as an institution of higher education to be tackling such global issues as climate change, that we should leave such a lofty task to the agricultural and automotive industries. But the beauty of our institution is that we do not solely seek to profit off of our students; we also seek to make positive changes in the world. Hundreds of schools around the country are taking similar actions. Are you arguing that all of these efforts combined will not greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Our efforts, in conjunction with other schools, businesses, government entities, and individuals throughout the country and the world, can at least slightly mitigate the consequences of climate change and, with any luck, help to push big businesses “likely through popular support followed by legislation” toward the same end.
If the scientists whom you refuse to validate are in fact correct, we are facing a global problem that needs to be addressed globally and at every level. Wesleyan’s abstention from such a Climate Commitment, therefore, would be irresponsible, and indeed hypocritical. I am extremely proud of President Roth for the steps he has taken to play a role in such a critical international movement, and I look forward to seeing the steps that Wesleyan takes to carry out its pledge in the coming months and years.
Leave a Reply